* Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-06-29 15:19:17]: > 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. I am currently porting the framework over to powerpc. I will share the initial patches in couple of days. --Vaidy -- 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>