* Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > So give me a break... you must have made a real mess in your > benchmarking. numasched is always doing worse than upstream > here, in fact two times massively worse. Almost as bad as the > inverse binds. Andrea, please stop attacking the messenger. We wanted and needed more testing, and I'm glad that we got it. Can we please figure out all the details *without* accusing anyone of having made a mess? It is quite possible as well that *you* made a mess of it somewhere, either at the conceptual stage or at the implementational stage, right? numasched getting close to the hard binding numbers is pretty much what I'd expect to see from it: it is an automatic/intelligent CPU and memory affinity (and migration) method to approximate the results of manual hard binding of threads. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>