On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:39:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > I am most certainly not going to fix your mess as I completely disagree > with the approach taken. This is _purely_ a performance optimization so if my design is so bad, and you're also requiring all apps that spans over more than one NUMA node to be modified to use your new syscalls, you won't have problems to win against AutoNUMA in the benchmarks. At the moment I can't believe your design has a chance to compete. But please proof me wrong with the numbers, and I won't be stubborn and I'll rm -r autonuma and (if you let me), I'll be happy to contribute to your code. > You're in fact very unclear. You post patches without the RFC tag, Subject: [PATCH 00/39] [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha10 -- 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>