[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50BCCAA3.6060604@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:52:03 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/52] RFC: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v1
On 12/02/2012 01:42 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Most of the outstanding objections against numa/core centered around
> Mel and Rik objecting to the PROT_NONE approach Peter implemented in
> numa/core. To settle that question objectively I've performed performance
> testing of those differences, by picking up the minimum number of
> essentials needed to be able to remove the PROT_NONE approach and use
> the PTE_NUMA approach Mel took from the AutoNUMA tree and elsewhere.
For the record, I have no objection to either of
the pte marking approaches.
> Rik van Riel (1):
> sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :)
--
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