5 Apr 2002 23:14
Re: Minutes from 4/5 Con Call
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar <at> yahoo.com>
2002-04-05 21:14:03 GMT
2002-04-05 21:14:03 GMT
. > Kanoj examined Dan's approach fairly aggressivly > especially with regard to TLB and cacheline True. > utilization. Dan was > able to convince him it was the right way over the > course of > dinner. Ummm, I seem to have given the wrong impression to Dan(Continue reading)I don't think it was quite clear to me exactly how/what Dan's patch improves over the current DISCONTIGMEM (possibly because I didn't understand the implementation), as well as how it will solve some of the problems associated with virtually contiguous but physically discontiguous chunks of mem_maps. I did mention that Dan should talk to Davis Mossberger to understand why this approach was tried and discarded on IA64 (other cpus might have different enough characterstics to make this approach performance safe). Some of the thought process that went into current DISCONTIGMEM is archived on oss.sgi.com/projects/numa (well, I hope it still is when oss comes back online!), but the set of restrictions that existed in the 2.3 timeframe might have changed, allowing improvements.
I don't think it was quite
clear to me exactly how/what Dan's patch improves over
the current DISCONTIGMEM (possibly because I didn't
understand the implementation), as well as how it will
solve some of the problems associated with virtually
contiguous but physically discontiguous chunks of
mem_maps. I did mention that Dan should talk to
Davis Mossberger to understand why this approach was
tried and discarded on IA64 (other cpus might have
different enough characterstics to make this
approach performance safe). Some of the thought
process
that went into current DISCONTIGMEM is archived on
oss.sgi.com/projects/numa (well, I hope it still is
when oss comes back online!), but the set of
restrictions that existed in the 2.3 timeframe might
have changed, allowing improvements.
RSS Feed