Re: Results for balancenuma v8, autonuma-v28fast and numacore-20121126

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

 



On 11/30/2012 06:41 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
This is an another insanely long mail. Short summary, based on the results
of what is in tip/master right now, I think if we're going to merge
anything for v3.8 it should be the "Automatic NUMA Balancing V8". It does
reasonably well for many of the workloads and AFAIK there is no reason why
numacore or autonuma could not be rebased on top with the view to merging
proper scheduling and placement policies in 3.9.

Given how minimalistic balancenuma is, and how there does not seem
to be anything significant in the way of performance regressions
with balancenuma, I have no objections to Linus merging all of
balancenuma for 3.8.

That could significantly reduce the amount of NUMA code we need
to "fight over" for the 3.9 kernel :)

--
All rights reversed

--
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]