[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/52] RFC: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v1
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? :)

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-03 17:41    [W:0.311 / U:1.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site