On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 09:43:10AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:26 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:26:50PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > There appears to still be some serious issues in the patch with respect
> > > to per-zone accounting. There is only accounting in each ckrm_mem_res
> > > for each *kind* of zone, not each zone.
> >
> > In the absense of NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM, isn't 'kind of zone' and 'zone'
> > the same ? Correct me if this assumption is wrong.
>
> Yes, that is correct. Do you not expect your code to work with NUMA or
> DISCONTIGMEM?
not yet...
>
> > > Could you explain what advantages keeping a per-zone-type count has over
> > > actually doing one count for each zone? Also, why bother tracking it
> > > per-zone-type anyway? Would a single count work the same way
> >
> > fits the NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM issue discussed above.
>
> I don't think it fits it very well, it kinda just glosses over it. A
> great fit would be something that tracked how much each class was using
> in each zone, not each kind of zone. Perhaps a controller would like to
> keep an individual class from using too much memory in any particular
> NUMA node. The current memory controller design would keep that from
> happening.
This is one of "things to consider" in our "numa support".
>
> -- Dave
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
Want to be the first software developer in space?
Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
