Hi Christoph, On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:11:51PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I did not say anything like that. Still not convinced that autonuma is > worth doing and that it is beneficial given the complexity it adds to the > kernel. Just wanted to point out that there is a case to be made for > adding another word to the page struct. You've seen the benchmarks, no other solution that exists today solves all those cases and never showed a regression compared to upstream. Running that much faster is very beneficial in my view. Expecting the admin of a 2 socket system to use hard bindings manually is unrealistic, even for a 4 socket is unrealistic. If you've 512 node system well then you can afford to setup everything manually and boot with noautonuma, no argument about that. About the complexity, well there's no simple solution to an hard problem. The proof comes from the schednuma crowd that is currently copying the AutoNUMA scheduler cpu-follow-memory design at full force as we speak. Thanks, Andrea -- 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>