[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121116195018.GA8908@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:50:18 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Benchmark results: "Enhanced NUMA scheduling with adaptive
affinity"
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:14:28PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> With some shuffling the question on what to consider for merging
> becomes
>
>
> 1. TLB optimisation patches 1-3? Patches 1-3
I assume you mean simply reshuffling 33-35 as 1-3.
> 2. Stats for migration? Patches 4-6
> 3. Common NUMA infrastructure? Patches 7-21
> 4. Basic fault-driven policy, stats, ratelimits Patches 22-35
>
> Patches 36-43 are complete cabbage and should not be considered at this
> stage. It should be possible to build the placement policies and the
> scheduling decisions from schednuma, autonuma, some combination of the
> above or something completely different on top of patches 1-35.
>
> Peter, Ingo, Andrea?
The patches 1-35 looks a great foundation so I think they'd be an
ideal candidate for a first upstream inclusion.
Thanks,
Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists