From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jose R. Santos" Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:19:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] NUMA boot hash allocation interleaving Message-Id: <20041223021901.GA27746@rx8.austin.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <50260000.1103061628@flay> <20041215045855.GH27225@wotan.suse.de> <20041215144730.GC24000@krispykreme.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20041216050248.GG32718@wotan.suse.de> <20041216051323.GI24000@krispykreme.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20041216141814.GA10292@rx8.austin.ibm.com> <20041220165629.GA21231@rx8.austin.ibm.com> <20041221114605.GB21710@krispykreme.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Brent Casavant Cc: Anton Blanchard , "Jose R. Santos" , Andi Kleen , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Brent Casavant [041221]: > I didn't realize this was ppc64 testing. What was the exact setup > for the testing? The patch as posted (and I hope clearly explained) > only turns on the behavior by default when both CONFIG_NUMA and > CONFIG_IA64 were active. It could be activated on non-IA64 by setting > hashdist=1 on the boot line, or by modifying the patch. I wasn't aware of the little detail. I re-tested with hashdist=1 and this time it shows a slowdown of about 3%-4% on a 4-Way Power5 system (2 NUMA nodes) with 64GB. Don't see a big problem if the things is off by default on non IA64 systems though. > I would hate to find out that the testing didn't actually enable the > new behavior. Serves me right for not reading the entire thread. :) -JRS