On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 04:52:40AM -0500, Niels Christiansen wrote:
>
> Hello Dikanpar,
> | It should be easy to place the counters in appropriately close
> | memory if linux gets good NUMA APIs built on top of the topology
> | services. If we extend kmem_cache_alloc() to allocate memory
> | in a particular NUMA node, we could simply do this for placing the
> | counters -
> | ...
> | This would put the block of counters corresponding to a CPU in
> | memory local to the NUMA node. If there are more sophisticated
> | APIs available for suitable memory selection, those too can be made
> | use of here.
> |
> | Is this the kind of thing you are looking at ?
>
> I'm no NUMA person so I can't verify your code snippet but if it does
> what you say, yes, that is exactly what I meant: We may have to deal
> with both cache coherence and placement of counters in local memory.
Yes, we will likely need to place the conters in memory closest to
the corresponding CPUs.
I haven't yet started looking at the current NUMA proposals, but
I hope that there will be support for NUMA-aware allocations. The
flexible allocator scheme in our statctr implementation allows
each counter block corresponding to a CPU to be allocated separately
and we can make the locational judgement at that time as indicated
in my hypothetical changes to the statctr code snippet.
Thanks
Dipankar
-- Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. - 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 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 21:00:38 EST