From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:24:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:24:41 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:59082 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:24:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 12:20:59 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Marcelo Tosatti cc: Jesse Barnes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Whining about NUMA. :) [Was whining about 2.5...] Message-ID: <1816279834.1002543659@mbligh.des.sequent.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> That's what I was planning on ... we'd need m x n classzones, where m >> was the number of levels, and n the number of nodes. Each search would >> obviously be through m classzones. I'll go poke at the current code some more. > > You say "numbers of levels" as in each level being a given number of nodes > on that "level" distance ? Yes. For example, if the only different access speeds you have were "on the local node" vs "on another node", and access times to all *other* nodes were the same, you'd have 2 levels. If you have "on the local node" (10 ns) vs "on any node 1 hop away" (100ns), "on any node 2 hops away" (110ns), that'd be 3 levels. (latency numbers picked out of my portable random number generator ;-) ). If the latencies on a 4 level system turn out to be 10,100,101,102 then it's only going to be worth defining 2 levels. If they turn out to be 10,100,1000, 10000, then it'll (probably) be worth doing 4 .... M.