Stefan Lankes wrote: > By the way, do you also add Lee's "shared policy" patches? These > patches add MPOL_MF_SHARED, which is specified as 3. Afterwards, you > have to define MPOL_MF_LAZY as 4. Yes, I applied shared-policy-* since migrate-on-fault doesn't apply without them :) But I have the following in include/linux/mempolicy.h after applying all patches: #define MPOL_MF_LAZY (1<<3) /* Modifies '_MOVE: lazy migrate on fault */ #define MPOL_F_SHARED (1 << 0) /* identify shared policies */ Where did you get your F_SHARED=3 and MF_LAZY=4? > I got following performance results with MPOL_NOOP: > > # Nb_pages Cost(ns) > 32768 50431375 > 65536 101970000 > 131072 216200500 > 262144 511706000 Is there any migration here? Don't you just have unmap and fault without migration? In my test program, the initialization does MPOL_BIND. So the following MPOL_NOOP should just do nothing since the page is already correctly placed with regard to the previous MPOL_BIND. I feel like 2us per page looks too low for a migration and it's also very high for just unmap and fault-in. > I got following performance results with MPOL_PREFERRED: > > # Nb_pages Cost(ns) > 32768 141738000 That's about 60% faster than on my machine (quad-barcelona 8347HE 1.9GHz). What machine are you running on? Brice -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
