On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 19:38 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/24/2014 05:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Is there any good reason not to use vmalloc for x86_64 stacks? > > Additional TLB pressure if anything else.
It seems TLB pressure gets less and less interest these days... Is it still worth trying to reduce it ? I was wondering for example why 'hashdist' is not cleared if current host runs a NUMA enabled kernel, but has a single node. Something like following maybe ? diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt index 7dbe5ec9d9cd08afac13797e2adac291fb703eec..0846ef054b0620a7be0c6f69b1a2f21c78d57d3b 100644 --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt @@ -1181,7 +1181,7 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted. hashdist= [KNL,NUMA] Large hashes allocated during boot are distributed across NUMA nodes. Defaults on for 64-bit NUMA, off otherwise. - Format: 0 | 1 (for off | on) + Format: 0 | 1 | 2 (for off | on if NUMA host | on) hcl= [IA-64] SGI's Hardware Graph compatibility layer diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index 1a883705a12a8a12410914be93b2ee65807cc423..8aded4c11c8c1cc5778e9ae2b9cd5146070b5b03 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -668,7 +668,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void) node_set(0, numa_nodes_parsed); numa_add_memblk(0, 0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn)); - + if (hashdist == HASHDIST_DEFAULT) + hashdist = 0; return 0; } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/