From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx126.postini.com [74.125.245.126]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C7556B0068 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:28:10 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches Message-Id: <20121030082810.b9576441.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20121030122032.GC3888@suse.de> References: <20121025121617.617683848@chello.nl> <20121030122032.GC3888@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:20:32 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote: > ... Useful testing - thanks. Did I miss the description of what autonumabench actually does? How representitive is it of real-world things? > I also expect autonuma is continually scanning where as schednuma is > reacting to some other external event or at least less frequently scanning. Might this imply that autonuma is consuming more CPU in kernel threads, the cost of which didn't get included in these results? -- 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: email@kvack.org