On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 5:30 PM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Re: Tomas Vondra
> > If it's a reliable fix, then I guess we can do it like this. But won't
> > that be a performance penalty on everyone? Or does the system split the
> > array into 16-element chunks anyway, so this makes no difference?
>
> There's still the overhead of the syscall itself. But no idea how
> costly it is to have this 16-step loop in user or kernel space.
>
> We could claim that on 32-bit systems, shared_buffers would be smaller
> anyway, so there the overhead isn't that big. And the step size should
> be larger (if at all) on 64-bit.
>
> > Anyway, maybe we should start by reporting this to the kernel people. Do
> > you want me to do that, or shall one of you take care of that? I suppose
> > that'd be better, as you already wrote a fix / know the code better.
>
> Submitted: https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=175077821909222&w=2
>
Hi all, I'm quite late to the party (just noticed the thread), but
here's some addition context: it technically didn't make any sense to
me to have NUMA on 32-bit due too small amount of addressable memory
(after all, NUMA is about big iron, probably not even VMs), so in the
first versions of the patchset I've excluded 32-bit (and back then for
some reason I couldn't even find libnuma i386, but Andres pointed to
me that it exists, so we re-added it probably just to stay
consistent). The thread has kind of snowballed since then, but I still
believe that NUMA on 32-bit does not make a lot of sense.
Even assuming future shm interleaving one day in future version,
allocation of small s_b sizes will usually fit a single NUMA node.
-J.
