On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:55:07AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:50:48PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Let me start by saying I agree completely with everything you wrote and > still disagree with this patch, but was willing to compromise and work > around this for our upcoming x86_64 machine by putting a "value add" > into our packaging of adding a sysctl that turns reclaim back on. >
To be honest, I'm more leaning towards a NACK than an ACK on this one. I don't support enough NUMA machines to feel strongly enough about it but unconditionally setting zone_reclaim_mode to 0 on x86-64 just because i7's might be there seems ill-advised to me and will have other consequences for existing more traditional x86-64 NUMA machines. > ... > > > Index: b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h > > > =================================================================== > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h > > > @@ -10,6 +10,12 @@ struct device_node; > > > > > > #include <asm/mmzone.h> > > > > > > +/* > > > + * Distance above which we begin to use zone reclaim > > > + */ > > > +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 > > > + > > > + > > > > Where is the ia-64-specific modifier to RECAIM_DISTANCE? > > It was already defined as 15 in arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h > /me slaps self thanks -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev