Re: Benchmark results: "Enhanced NUMA scheduling with adaptive affinity"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:50:18PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:14:28PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > With some shuffling the question on what to consider for merging
> > becomes
> > 
> >
> > 1. TLB optimisation patches 1-3?	 	Patches  1-3
> 
> I assume you mean simply reshuffling 33-35 as 1-3.
> 

Yes.

> > 2. Stats for migration?				Patches  4-6
> > 3. Common NUMA infrastructure?			Patches  7-21
> > 4. Basic fault-driven policy, stats, ratelimits	Patches 22-35
> > 
> > Patches 36-43 are complete cabbage and should not be considered at this
> > stage. It should be possible to build the placement policies and the
> > scheduling decisions from schednuma, autonuma, some combination of the
> > above or something completely different on top of patches 1-35.
> > 
> > Peter, Ingo, Andrea?
> 
> The patches 1-35 looks a great foundation so I think they'd be an
> ideal candidate for a first upstream inclusion.
> 

Thanks.

-- 
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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]