[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121203171126.GA18394@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:11:26 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
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
* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> >Rik van Riel (1):
> > sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
>
> Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :)
They are still very much there, unchanged for a long time and
acked by everyone - I thought I'd spare a few electrons by not
doing a 60+ patches full resend.
Here is how it looks like in the full diffstat:
Rik van Riel (6):
mm/generic: Only flush the local TLB in ptep_set_access_flags()
x86/mm: Only do a local tlb flush in ptep_set_access_flags()
x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()
mm: Only flush the TLB when clearing an accessible pte
x86/mm: Completely drop the TLB flush from ptep_set_access_flags()
sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
I'm really fond of these btw., they make a real difference.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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