Re: ZONE_PADDING wastes 4 bytes of the new cacheline

[Jesse Barnes]

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/