[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5345D912.7000606@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:34:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Use an alternative to _PAGE_PROTNONE for _PAGE_NUMA
v2
On 04/08/2014 11:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I think the real underlying objection was that PTE_NUMA was the last
> leftover from AutoNUMA, and removing it would have made it not a
> 'compromise' patch set between 'AutoNUMA' and 'sched/numa', but would
> have made the sched/numa approach 'win' by and large.
>
> The whole 'losing face' annoyance that plagues all of us (me
> included).
>
> I didn't feel it was important to the general logic of adding access
> pattern aware NUMA placement logic to the scheduler, and I obviously
> could not ignore the NAKs from various mm folks insisting on PTE_NUMA,
> so I conceded that point and Mel built on that approach as well.
>
> Nice it's being cleaned up, and I'm pretty happy about how NUMA
> balancing ended up looking like.
>
How painful would it be to get rid of _PAGE_NUMA entirely? Page bits
are a highly precious commodity and saving one would be valuable.
-hpa
--
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