Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 23:52 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Are we copying kernel text to each NUMA node ? ;) > > > > Beats me. I was under impression that cpu accessing memory on other node > > takes access penalty, thats why I changed it to per node allocation. > > Well, it depends. If one core is busy while others are idle, then > fetching data from 2 NUMA nodes is actually faster. (Some workloads are > actually faster with 'random' NUMA interleaving) > > If you constrain all memory access being done from local node, then you > might loose total bandwidth. In practice, intensive workloads will > populate L1/L2/L3 cache, and actual memory location does not really > matter. OK; convinced. I'll kill the per numa part of the change, thanks Eric. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
