lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:41:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 On 12/10/2012 01:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page, with a slight > advantage for numacore in the THP enabled case. balancenuma is closer > to mainline than to autonuma/numacore. Indeed, when the system is fully loaded, numacore does very well. The main issues that have been observed with numacore are when the system is only partially loaded. Something strange seems to be going on that causes performance regressions in that situation. -- All rights reversed -- 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