On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:01:31PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > This could be expressed as:
> > >
> > > "node A" HIGHMEM A -> HIGHMEM B -> NORMAL -> DMA
> > > "node B" HIGHMEM B -> HIGHMEM A -> NORMAL -> DMA
> >
> > Highmem? Let's assume you speak about "normal" and "dma" only of course.
> >
> > And that's not always the right zonelist layout. If an allocation asks for
> > ram from a certain node, like during the ram bindings, we should use the
> > current layout of the numa zonelist. If node A is the preferred, than we
> > should allocate from node A first,
>
> You're forgetting about the fact that this NUMA box only
> has 1 ZONE_NORMAL and 1 ZONE_DMA while it has multiple
> HIGHMEM zones...
>
> This makes the fallback pattern somewhat more complex.
Both HIMEM (on CPU) and NUMA nodes remind me somewhat of the days when
"band switched" memory was supposed to be the answer to limited addressing
space. The trick was to have things in the right place and not eat up the
capacity with moving data. I think you're right that the problem is not as
simple several posters have suggested. I'm afraid someone will have to do
some clever adaptive work here, the speed of the connects to the memory
will change as both evolve. And it's easier to make a node smaller than
put them closer together.
I'm awaiting the IBM paper(s) on this, I don't find my Hypercube and PVM
experience to fit well anymore :-(
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:37 EST