Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Use an alternative to _PAGE_PROTNONE for _PAGE_NUMA v2

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 04/08/2014 11:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> I think the real underlying objection was that PTE_NUMA was the last 
> leftover from AutoNUMA, and removing it would have made it not a 
> 'compromise' patch set between 'AutoNUMA' and 'sched/numa', but would 
> have made the sched/numa approach 'win' by and large.
> 
> The whole 'losing face' annoyance that plagues all of us (me 
> included).
> 
> I didn't feel it was important to the general logic of adding access 
> pattern aware NUMA placement logic to the scheduler, and I obviously 
> could not ignore the NAKs from various mm folks insisting on PTE_NUMA, 
> so I conceded that point and Mel built on that approach as well.
> 
> Nice it's being cleaned up, and I'm pretty happy about how NUMA 
> balancing ended up looking like.
> 

How painful would it be to get rid of _PAGE_NUMA entirely?  Page bits
are a highly precious commodity and saving one would be valuable.

	-hpa


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>