From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:00:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] NUMA boot hash allocation interleaving Message-Id: <50260000.1103061628@flay> List-Id: References: <9250000.1103050790@flay> <20041214191348.GA27225@wotan.suse.de><19030000.1103054924@flay> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Brent Casavant Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >> > I originally was a bit worried about the TLB usage, but it doesn't >> > seem to be a too big issue (hopefully the benchmarks weren't too >> > micro though) >> >> Well, as long as we stripe on large page boundaries, it should be fine, >> I'd think. On PPC64, it'll screw the SLB, but ... tough ;-) We can either >> turn it off, or only do it on things larger than the segment size, and >> just round-robin the rest, or allocate from node with most free. > > Is there a reasonably easy-to-use existing infrastructure to do this? > I didn't find anything in my examination of vmalloc itself, so I gave > up on the idea. Not that I know of. But (without looking at it), it wouldn't seem desperately hard to implement (some argument or flag to vmalloc, or vmalloc_largepage) or something. > And just to clarify, are you saying you want to see this before inclusion > in mainline kernels, or that it would be nice to have but not necessary? I'd say it's a nice to have, rather than necessary, as long as it's not forced upon people. Maybe a config option that's on by default on ia64 or something. Causing yourself TLB problems is much more acceptable than causing it for others ;-) M.