* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:Yes, you can find gigs tied up on systems that have 100 GB of RAM, or you can have gigs tied up if you over-size your caches. I'd like to see an accurate calculation done on this. yes, it's what i referred to as "distributed, per node cache". It has no "quadratic overhead". It has SLAB memory spread out amongst nodes. I.e. 1 million pages are distributed amongst 1k nodes with 1000 pages per node with each node having 1 page. But that memory is not lost and it's disingenous to call it 'overhead' and it very much comes handy for performance _IF_ there's global workload that involves cross-node allocations. It's simply a cache that is mis-sized and mis-constructed on large node count systems but i bet it makes quite a performance difference on low-node-count systems. On high node-count systems it might make sense to reduce the amount of cross-node caching and to _structure_ the distributed NUMA SLAB cache in an intelligent way (perhaps along cpuset boundaries) - but a total, design level _elimination_ of this caching concept, using very misleading arguments, just looks stupid to me ... Ingo --
| Justin C. Sherrill | Re: dragonflybsd.org website link? |
| David Woodhouse | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Eric Sandeen | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Patrick McHardy | [NET_SCHED 01/15]: sch_atm: fix format string warning |
