From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754749Ab2HJAu7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:50:59 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:53882 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751409Ab2HJAu6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:50:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,743,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="183867285" From: Andi Kleen To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Peter Zijlstra , mingo@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, pjt@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] mm/mpol: Remove NUMA_INTERLEAVE_HIT References: <20120731191204.540691987@chello.nl> <20120731192808.459705289@chello.nl> <20120809214111.GF10459@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:50:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20120809214111.GF10459@redhat.com> (Andrea Arcangeli's message of "Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:41:11 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Arcangeli writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> Since the NUMA_INTERLEAVE_HIT statistic is useless on its own; it wants >> to be compared to either a total of interleave allocations or to a miss >> count, remove it. >> >> Fixing it would be possible, but since we've gone years without these >> statistics I figure we can continue that way. >> >> Also NUMA_HIT fully includes NUMA_INTERLEAVE_HIT so users might >> switch to using that. >> >> This cleans up some of the weird MPOL_INTERLEAVE allocation exceptions. > > It's not apparent why you need to remove it for sched-numa. I think I > see it but it'd be nicer if it would explained so one doesn't need to > read an internal bit of several patches later to understand why this > is needed. Also it still breaks the numactl test suite, as already explained multiple times. Without the HIT counter there is no way to check interleave actually happened. I'm a bit concerned about patch kits like this ignoring review feedback? -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only