From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx156.postini.com [74.125.245.156]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 709866B0072 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:50:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:50:18 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: Benchmark results: "Enhanced NUMA scheduling with adaptive affinity" Message-ID: <20121116195018.GA8908@redhat.com> References: <20121112160451.189715188@chello.nl> <20121112184833.GA17503@gmail.com> <20121115100805.GS8218@suse.de> <50A566FA.2090306@redhat.com> <20121116141428.GZ8218@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121116141428.GZ8218@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm , Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner Hi, On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:14:28PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > With some shuffling the question on what to consider for merging > becomes > > > 1. TLB optimisation patches 1-3? Patches 1-3 I assume you mean simply reshuffling 33-35 as 1-3. > 2. Stats for migration? Patches 4-6 > 3. Common NUMA infrastructure? Patches 7-21 > 4. Basic fault-driven policy, stats, ratelimits Patches 22-35 > > Patches 36-43 are complete cabbage and should not be considered at this > stage. It should be possible to build the placement policies and the > scheduling decisions from schednuma, autonuma, some combination of the > above or something completely different on top of patches 1-35. > > Peter, Ingo, Andrea? The patches 1-35 looks a great foundation so I think they'd be an ideal candidate for a first upstream inclusion. Thanks, Andrea -- 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