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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >Rik van Riel (1):
> >   sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
> 
> Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :)

They are still very much there, unchanged for a long time and 
acked by everyone - I thought I'd spare a few electrons by not 
doing a 60+ patches full resend.

Here is how it looks like in the full diffstat:

 Rik van Riel (6):
      mm/generic: Only flush the local TLB in ptep_set_access_flags()
      x86/mm: Only do a local tlb flush in ptep_set_access_flags()
      x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()
      mm: Only flush the TLB when clearing an accessible pte
      x86/mm: Completely drop the TLB flush from ptep_set_access_flags()
      sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement

I'm really fond of these btw., they make a real difference.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/