On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 08:52:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 06:13:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is the latest iteration of our numa/core tree, which > > > implements adaptive NUMA affinity balancing. > > > > > > Changes in this version: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/12/315 > > > > > > Performance figures: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/12/330 > > > > > > Any review feedback, comments and test results are welcome! > > > > > > > For the purposes of review and testing, this is going to be > > hard to pick apart and compare. It doesn't apply against > > 3.7-rc5 [...] > > Because the scheduler changes are highly non-trivial it's on top > of the scheduler tree: > > git pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core > > I just tested the patches, they all apply cleanly, with zero > fuzz and offsets. > The actual numa patches don't apply on top of that but at least the conflicts are obvious to resolve. I'll queue up a test to run overnight but in the meantime, does the current implementation of the NUMA patches *depend* on any of those scheduler patches? Normally I would say it'd be obvious from the series except in this case it just isn't because of the monolithic nature of some of the patches. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>