Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I've also stated several times that forceful migration in the context of
> > numa balancing must go.
> 
> I am not convinced about this part either way.
> 
> I do not see how a migration numa thread (which could potentially
> use idle cpu time) will be any worse than migrate on fault, which
> will always take away time from the userspace process. 

Any NUMA stuff is long term, it really shouldn't matter on the timescale
of a few jiffies.

NUMA placement should also not over-ride fairness, esp. not by default.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/