From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx199.postini.com [74.125.245.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC5186B002B for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:53:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50BCCAA3.6060604@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:52:03 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/52] RFC: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v1 References: <1354473824-19229-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1354473824-19229-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Johannes Weiner , Hugh Dickins 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? :) -- 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