Re: [PATCH 00/52] RFC: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v1

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

 



* Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >Rik van Riel (1):
> >   sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
> 
> Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :)

They are still very much there, unchanged for a long time and 
acked by everyone - I thought I'd spare a few electrons by not 
doing a 60+ patches full resend.

Here is how it looks like in the full diffstat:

 Rik van Riel (6):
      mm/generic: Only flush the local TLB in ptep_set_access_flags()
      x86/mm: Only do a local tlb flush in ptep_set_access_flags()
      x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()
      mm: Only flush the TLB when clearing an accessible pte
      x86/mm: Completely drop the TLB flush from ptep_set_access_flags()
      sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement

I'm really fond of these btw., they make a real difference.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
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]