[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50C62CE7.2000306@redhat.com>
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