[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a3bd858-5464-4569-be1e-2a1867d90c15@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:56:58 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rppt@...nel.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com
Cc: willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, mingo@...nel.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, osalvador@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] handle memoryless nodes more appropriately
On 19.10.23 09:36, Qi Zheng wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently, in the process of initialization or offline memory, memoryless
> nodes will still be built into the fallback list of itself or other nodes.
>
> This is not what we expected, so this patch series removes memoryless
> nodes from the fallback list entirely.
What's the end result of this change -- IOW why do we care? Patch #1
mentions "which will reduce runtime overhead." and patch #2 mentions
"This will incur some runtime overhead.". IIUC the comment in patch #1
correctly, these changes don't fix anything, correct?
Did you look into showing a performance gain?
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists