From: Andrew M. <ak...@di...> - 2002-10-10 03:05:25
|
Matthew Dobson wrote: > > Greetings & Salutations, > Here's a wonderful patch that I know you're all dying for... Memory > Binding! Seems reasonable to me. Could you tell us a bit about the operator's view of this? I assume that a typical usage scenario would be to bind a process to a bunch of CPUs and to then bind that process to a bunch of memblks as well? If so, then how does the operator know how to identify those memblks? To perform the (cpu list) <-> (memblk list) mapping? Also, what advantage does this provide over the current node-local allocation policy? I'd have thought that once you'd bound a process to a CPU (or to a node's CPUs) that as long as the zone fallback list was right, that process would be getting local memory pretty much all the time anyway? Last but not least: you got some benchmark numbers for this? Thanks. |