On 10/25/2012 08:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

+/*
+ * Drive the periodic memory faults..
+ */
+void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
+{
+	struct callback_head *work = &curr->numa_work;
+	u64 period, now;
+
+	/*
+	 * We don't care about NUMA placement if we don't have memory.
+	 */
+	if (!curr->mm || (curr->flags & PF_EXITING) || work->next != work)
+		return;

We should probably skip the whole unmap-and-refault
business if we are running on a system that is not
NUMA.  Ie. a system with just one node...

+	/*
+	 * Using runtime rather than walltime has the dual advantage that
+	 * we (mostly) drive the selection from busy threads and that the
+	 * task needs to have done some actual work before we bother with
+	 * NUMA placement.
+	 */
+	now = curr->se.sum_exec_runtime;
+	period = (u64)curr->numa_scan_period * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
+

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>