| Date | Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:52:03 -0500 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [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? :)
|