From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261881AbULOE67 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:58:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261883AbULOE67 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:58:59 -0500 Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:47059 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261881AbULOE64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:58:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:58:55 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Brent Casavant , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] NUMA boot hash allocation interleaving Message-ID: <20041215045855.GH27225@wotan.suse.de> References: <50260000.1103061628@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50260000.1103061628@flay> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > And just to clarify, are you saying you want to see this before inclusion > > in mainline kernels, or that it would be nice to have but not necessary? > > I'd say it's a nice to have, rather than necessary, as long as it's not > forced upon people. Maybe a config option that's on by default on ia64 > or something. Causing yourself TLB problems is much more acceptable than > causing it for others ;-) Given that Brent did lots of benchmarks which didn't show any slowdowns I don't think this is really needed (at least as long as nobody demonstrates a ireal slowdown from the patch). And having such special cases is always ugly, better not have them when not needed. -Andi