On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:23:20PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > Set the node_possible_map at runtime. On a non NUMA system,
> > num_possible_nodes() will now say '1'
>
> How does this relate to nr_node_ids?
With this patch, nr_node_ids on
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Set the node_possible_map at runtime. On a non NUMA system,
> num_possible_nodes() will now say '1'
How does this relate to nr_node_ids?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:12:10PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > But that is based on compile time option, isn't it? Perhaps I need
> > to use some other mechanism to find out the platform is not NUMA capable..
>
> We can probably make it runtime on x86. That will be needed sooner or
> later for
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:12:10PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
But that is based on compile time option, isn't it? Perhaps I need
to use some other mechanism to find out the platform is not NUMA capable..
We can probably make it runtime on x86. That will be needed sooner or
later for correct
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Set the node_possible_map at runtime. On a non NUMA system,
num_possible_nodes() will now say '1'
How does this relate to nr_node_ids?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:23:20PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Set the node_possible_map at runtime. On a non NUMA system,
num_possible_nodes() will now say '1'
How does this relate to nr_node_ids?
With this patch, nr_node_ids on non NUMA
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 06:25:16PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> > > You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids (this one is
> > > cheaper,
> > > its a variable instead of a function call)
> >
> > But that is based on compile time
> But that is based on compile time option, isn't it? Perhaps I need
> to use some other mechanism to find out the platform is not NUMA capable..
We can probably make it runtime on x86. That will be needed sooner or
later for correct NUMA hotplug support anyways.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from
But that is based on compile time option, isn't it? Perhaps I need
to use some other mechanism to find out the platform is not NUMA capable..
We can probably make it runtime on x86. That will be needed sooner or
later for correct NUMA hotplug support anyways.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 06:25:16PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids (this one is
cheaper,
its a variable instead of a function call)
But that is based on compile time option, isn't
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids (this one is cheaper,
> > its a variable instead of a function call)
>
> But that is based on compile time option, isn't it? Perhaps I need
> to use some other mechanism to find out the
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12:39PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
+ if (num_online_nodes() == 1)
+ use_alien_caches = 0;
+
Unfortunatly this part is wrong.
oops.
You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12:39PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
> >+if (num_online_nodes() == 1)
> >+use_alien_caches = 0;
> >+
>
> Unfortunatly this part is wrong.
oops.
>
> You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids (this one is cheaper,
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
Christoph,
While we are at this topic, recently I had reports that
cache_free_alien() is costly on non NUMA platforms too (similar
to the cache miss issues that Eric was referring to on NUMA)
and the appended patch seems to fix it for non NUMA atleast.
Appended patch
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> @@ -1394,6 +1394,9 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
> int order;
> int node;
>
> + if (num_online_nodes() == 1)
> + use_alien_caches = 0;
> +
What happens if you bring up a second node?
-
To unsubscribe from this
Christoph,
While we are at this topic, recently I had reports that
cache_free_alien() is costly on non NUMA platforms too (similar
to the cache miss issues that Eric was referring to on NUMA)
and the appended patch seems to fix it for non NUMA atleast.
Appended patch gives a nice 1% perf
Christoph,
While we are at this topic, recently I had reports that
cache_free_alien() is costly on non NUMA platforms too (similar
to the cache miss issues that Eric was referring to on NUMA)
and the appended patch seems to fix it for non NUMA atleast.
Appended patch gives a nice 1% perf
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
@@ -1394,6 +1394,9 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
int order;
int node;
+ if (num_online_nodes() == 1)
+ use_alien_caches = 0;
+
What happens if you bring up a second node?
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
Christoph,
While we are at this topic, recently I had reports that
cache_free_alien() is costly on non NUMA platforms too (similar
to the cache miss issues that Eric was referring to on NUMA)
and the appended patch seems to fix it for non NUMA atleast.
Appended patch
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12:39PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
+if (num_online_nodes() == 1)
+use_alien_caches = 0;
+
Unfortunatly this part is wrong.
oops.
You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids (this one is cheaper,
its a
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12:39PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Siddha, Suresh B a écrit :
+ if (num_online_nodes() == 1)
+ use_alien_caches = 0;
+
Unfortunatly this part is wrong.
oops.
You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
You should check num_possible_nodes(), or nr_node_ids (this one is cheaper,
its a variable instead of a function call)
But that is based on compile time option, isn't it? Perhaps I need
to use some other mechanism to find out the platform is
22 matches
Mail list logo
