> I don't think the first one works without the second. Calling getcpu() > on startup is meaningless since the initial placement doesn't take the
Who said anything about startup? The idea behind getcpu() is to call it every time you allocate someting. > > > >Anyways it's not ideal either, but in my mind would be all preferable > >to default CPU pinning. > > I agree we need something dynamic, and that we need to tie cpu affinity > and memory affinity together. > > This could happen completely in the kernel (not an easy task), or by There were experimental patches for tieing memory migration to cpu migration some time ago from Lee S. > having a second-level scheduler in userspace polling for cpu usage an > rebalancing processes across numa nodes. Given that with virtualization > you have a few long lived processes, this does not seem too difficult. I think I would prefer to fix that in the kernel. user space will never have the full picture. -Andi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
