On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:20:32 +0000 Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > ... Useful testing - thanks. Did I miss the description of what autonumabench actually does? How representitive is it of real-world things? > I also expect autonuma is continually scanning where as schednuma is > reacting to some other external event or at least less frequently scanning. Might this imply that autonuma is consuming more CPU in kernel threads, the cost of which didn't get included in these results? -- 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>