Re: [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix

From: Erich Focht (
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 11:47:14 EST

Hi Martin and Michael,

thanks for testing again!

On Thursday 16 January 2003 07:05, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> I'm not keen on the way the minisched patch got reformatted. I changed
> it into a seperate function, which I think is much cleaner by the time
> you've added the third patch - no #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA in load_balance.

Fine. This form is also nearer to the codingstyle rule: "functions
should do only one thing" (I'm reading those more carefully now ;-)

> Anyway, I perf tested this, and it comes out more or less the same as
> the tuned version I was poking at last night (ie best of the bunch).
> Looks pretty good to me.


> PS. The fourth patch was so small, and touching the same stuff as 3
> that I rolled it into the third one here. Seems like a universal
> benefit ;-)

Yes, it's a much smaller step than patch #5. It would make sense to
have this included right from the start.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:13 EST