Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I've also stated several times that forceful migration in the context of
> > numa balancing must go.
> 
> I am not convinced about this part either way.
> 
> I do not see how a migration numa thread (which could potentially
> use idle cpu time) will be any worse than migrate on fault, which
> will always take away time from the userspace process. 

Any NUMA stuff is long term, it really shouldn't matter on the timescale
of a few jiffies.

NUMA placement should also not over-ride fairness, esp. not by default.

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]