On 11/06/2012 04:14 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> NOTE: This patch is based on "sched, numa, mm: Add fault driven placement and migration policy" but as it throws away all the policy to just leave a basic foundation I had to drop the signed-offs-by. This patch creates a bare-bones method for setting PTEs pte_numa in the context of the scheduler that when faulted later will be faulted onto the node the CPU is running on. In itself this does nothing useful but any placement policy will fundamentally depend on receiving hints on placement from fault context and doing something intelligent about it. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Excellent basis for implementing a smarter NUMA policy. Not sure if such a policy should be implemented as a replacement for this patch, or on top of it... Either way, thank you for cleaning up all of the NUMA base code, while I was away at conferences and stuck in airports :) Peter, Andrea - does this look like a good basis for implementing and comparing your NUMA policies? I mean, it does to me. I am just wondering if there is any reason at all you two could not use it as a basis for an apples-to-apples comparison of your NUMA placement policies? Sharing 2/3 of the code would sure get rid of the bulk of the discussion, and allow us to make real progress. -- 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>