Matt
On 6/28/2019 10:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun, at 09:18:01PM, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
>>
>> We use 16 to designate 1-hop latency (for different node within the same
>> socket).
>> For across-socket access, since the latency is greater, we set the latency
>> to 32
>>
On Wed, 26 Jun, at 09:18:01PM, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
>
> We use 16 to designate 1-hop latency (for different node within the same
> socket).
> For across-socket access, since the latency is greater, we set the latency to
> 32
> (twice the latency of 1-hop) not aware of the
On 6/24/19 9:24 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:34:37PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun, at 02:33:18PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:43:19AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
This works for me under all my tests. Thoughts?
--->8---
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:34:37PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun, at 02:33:18PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:43:19AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > This works for me under all my tests. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --->8---
> > >
> > > diff --git
On Tue, 18 Jun, at 02:33:18PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:43:19AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > This works for me under all my tests. Thoughts?
> >
> > --->8---
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > index
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:43:19AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> This works for me under all my tests. Thoughts?
>
> --->8---
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> index 80a405c2048a..4db4e9e7654b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> +++
On Tue, 11 Jun, at 05:22:21PM, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 6/10/19 4:26 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Jun, at 08:00:35PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >> And then we had two magic values :/
> >>
> >> Should we not 'fix' RECLAIM_DISTANCE for EPYC or something? Because
> >> surely, if we
On 6/10/19 4:26 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun, at 08:00:35PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> And then we had two magic values :/
>>
>> Should we not 'fix' RECLAIM_DISTANCE for EPYC or something? Because
>> surely, if we want to load-balance agressively over 30, then so too
>> should we do
On Wed, 05 Jun, at 08:00:35PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> And then we had two magic values :/
>
> Should we not 'fix' RECLAIM_DISTANCE for EPYC or something? Because
> surely, if we want to load-balance agressively over 30, then so too
> should we do node_reclaim() I'm thikning.
Yeah we can fix
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 04:59:22PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> SD_BALANCE_{FORK,EXEC} and SD_WAKE_AFFINE are stripped in sd_init()
> for any sched domains with a NUMA distance greater than 2 hops
> (RECLAIM_DISTANCE). The idea being that it's expensive to balance
> across domains that far apart.
SD_BALANCE_{FORK,EXEC} and SD_WAKE_AFFINE are stripped in sd_init()
for any sched domains with a NUMA distance greater than 2 hops
(RECLAIM_DISTANCE). The idea being that it's expensive to balance
across domains that far apart.
However, as is rather unfortunately explained in
commit
11 matches
Mail list logo
