[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxVbeKa4RbqYcs_m3K_W0J_SXY-HeQ7hwJWODkwXs53Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:19:04 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The *other* memory policies look fairly sane. They basically have a
> fairly well-defined preferred node for the policy (although the
> "MPOL_INTERLEAVE" looks wrong for a hugepage). But
> MPOL_PREFERRED/MPOL_F_LOCAL really looks completely broken.
Of course, I don't know if that customer test-case actually triggers
that MPOL_PREFERRED/MPOL_F_LOCAL case at all.
So again, that issue may not even be what is going on.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists