linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Automatic NUMA Balancing V11

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1212161850060.1626@eggly.anvils>
Date:	Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:53:42 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Automatic NUMA Balancing V11

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > This is a pull request for "Automatic NUMA Balancing V11". The list
> 
> Ok, guys, I've pulled this and pushed out. There were some conflicts
> with both the VM changes and with the scheduler tree, but they were
> pretty small and looked simple, so I fixed them up and hope they all
> work.

Great! Thank you. Rejoicing on all sides.
One small merge fixup follows under new subject.

Hugh

> 
> Has anybody tested the impact on single-node systems? If distros
> enable this by default (and it does have 'default y', which is a big
> no-no for new features - I undid that part) then there will be tons of
> people running this without actually having multiple sockets. Does it
> gracefully avoid pointless overheads for this case?
> 
> Anyway, hopefully we'll have a more real numa balancing for 3.9, and
> this is still considered a reasonable base for that work.
> 
>                   Linus
--
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/