Re: ZONE_PADDING wastes 4 bytes of the new cacheline

Jesse Barnes
2004-10-22T03:52:08Z

On Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:38 pm, Nick Piggin wrote:
> That problem shouldn't exist any more, so your one zone per node (?)
> NUMA systems, incremental min won't have any effect at all.

Well, it used to affect us, since as the allocator iterated over nodes, the
incremental min would increase, and so by the time we hit the 3rd or so node,
we were leaving quite a bit of memory unused. I just don't want to return to
the bad old days.

> That said, it isn't something that we should just turn on and see
> who yells.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Jesse