On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:57:44PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:48:55PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 05:50:28PM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote: > > > My apologies for taking so long to get back to this. > > > > > > I think I did locate two potential sources of slowdown. > > > One is the set_cpus_allowed_ptr as I have noted previously. > > > However I only notice that on the very largest boxes. > > > I did cobble together a patch that seems to help. > > > > > > > If you are using kthread_create_on_node(), is it even necessary to call > > set_cpus_allowed_ptr() at all? > > > > That aside, are you aware of any failure with this series as it currently > stands in Andrew's tree that this patch is meant to address? It seems > like a nice follow-on that would boot faster on very large machines but > if it's addressing a regression then it's very important as the series > cannot be merged with known critical failures. > Nope I haven't recorded any failures without it. I just get concerned when I see some scaling issues that something COULD go wrong. Nate -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>