Re: [PATCH 00/52] RFC: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v1

[Rik van Riel]

On 12/02/2012 01:42 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> Most of the outstanding objections against numa/core centered around
> Mel and Rik objecting to the PROT_NONE approach Peter implemented in
> numa/core. To settle that question objectively I've performed performance
> testing of those differences, by picking up the minimum number of
> essentials needed to be able to remove the PROT_NONE approach and use
> the PTE_NUMA approach Mel took from the AutoNUMA tree and elsewhere.

For the record, I have no objection to either of
the pte marking approaches.

> Rik van Riel (1):
>    sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement

Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :)

--
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/