On 06/29/2012 03:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 20:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
I am not convinced all architectures that have CONFIG_NUMA
need to be a requirement, since some of them (eg. Alpha)
seem to be lacking a maintainer nowadays.
Still, this NUMA balancing stuff is not a small tweak to load-balancing.
Its a very significant change is how you schedule. Having such great
differences over architectures isn't something I look forward to.
I am not too worried about the performance of architectures
that are essentially orphaned :)
Also, Andrea keeps insisting arch support is trivial, so I don't see the
problem.
Getting it implemented in one or two additional architectures
would be good, to get a template out there that can be used by
other architecture maintainers.
--
All rights reversed
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>