On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:49:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Because we lack data on TLB range flush distributions I think we > > should still go with the conservative choice for the TLB flush > > shift. The worst case is really bad here and it's painfully obvious > > on ebizzy. > > So I'm obviously much in favor of this - I'd in fact suggest making > the conservative choice on _all_ CPU models that have aggressive TLB > range values right now, because frankly the testing used to pick those > values does not look all that convincing to me. > I think the choices there are already reasonably conservative. I'd be reluctant to support merging a patch that made a choice on all CPU models without having access to the machines to run tests on. I don't see the Intel people volunteering to do the necessary testing. -- 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>