From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx196.postini.com [74.125.245.196]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 65F596B00A0 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:18:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jg9so1803201bkc.14 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:18:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:18:07 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/49] Automatic NUMA Balancing v10 Message-ID: <20121211091807.GA23600@gmail.com> References: <1354875832-9700-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20121207110113.GB21482@gmail.com> <20121209203630.GC1009@suse.de> <20121210113945.GA7550@gmail.com> <20121210152405.GJ1009@suse.de> <20121211010201.GP1009@suse.de> <20121211085238.GA21673@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121211085238.GA21673@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Hugh Dickins , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Turner , Hillf Danton , David Rientjes , Lee Schermerhorn , Alex Shi , Srikar Dronamraju , Aneesh Kumar , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > This is prototype only but what I was using as a reference > > to see could I spot a problem in yours. It has not been even > > boot tested but avoids remote->remote copies, contending on > > PTL or holding it longer than necessary (should anyway) > > So ... because time is running out and it would be nice to > progress with this for v3.8, I'd suggest the following > approach: > > - Please send your current tree to Linus as-is. You already > have my Acked-by/Reviewed-by for its scheduler bits, and my > testing found your tree to have no regression to mainline, > plus it's a nice win in a number of NUMA-intense workloads. > So it's a good, monotonic step forward in terms of NUMA > balancing, very close to what the bits I'm working on need as > infrastructure. > > - I'll rebase all my devel bits on top of it. Instead of > removing the migration bandwidth I'll simply increase it for > testing - this should trigger similarly aggressive behavior. > I'll try to touch as little of the mm/ code as possible, to > keep things debuggable. One minor last-minute request/nit before you send it to Linus, would you mind doing a: CONFIG_BALANCE_NUMA => CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING rename please? (I can do it for you if you don't have the time.) CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING is really what fits into our existing NUMA namespace, CONFIG_NUMA, CONFIG_NUMA_EMU - and, more importantly, the ordering of words follows the common generic -> less generic ordering we do in the kernel for config names and methods. So it would fit nicely into existing Kconfig naming schemes: CONFIG_TRACING CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING etc. Thanks, Ingo -- 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