[upstream] NUMA bindings support for private memory #63
Conversation
vinser52
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do actually need support for private memory? I thought we just wanted to extend TempShmMapping - so that num binding would also work in case we didn't pass cacheDir / usePosixForShm.
Reviewed 7 of 14 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 7 of 14 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @byrnedj)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The createPrivateAllocator function has if/else block. What you are talking about is valid for the if block, while this PR impacts the else block. I decided to make/upstream changes iteratively. As a next step, I can extend the if block.
In general, the TempShmMapping is used only when cacheDir is not specified in the config but memory monitoring is enabled. Otherwise, private memory is used and this PR address only this flow.
Reviewable status: 7 of 14 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @byrnedj)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 7 of 14 files at r1.
Reviewable status:complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @byrnedj)
This change is