On 12/02/2012 01:42 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Most of the outstanding objections against numa/core centered around Mel and Rik objecting to the PROT_NONE approach Peter implemented in numa/core. To settle that question objectively I've performed performance testing of those differences, by picking up the minimum number of essentials needed to be able to remove the PROT_NONE approach and use the PTE_NUMA approach Mel took from the AutoNUMA tree and elsewhere.
For the record, I have no objection to either of the pte marking approaches.
Rik van Riel (1): sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :) -- 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>