On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 04:36:28PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:16:23 -0500, Johannes Weiner said: > > > I would generally agree, but this code, which implements a userspace > > interface, is already grotesquely inefficient and heavyhanded. It's > > also superseded in the next release, so we can just keep this simple > > at this point. > > Wait, what? Userspace interface that's superceded in the next release? The existing interface and its implementation are going to remain in place, obviously, we can't break userspace. But the semantics are ill-defined and the implementation bad to a point where we decided to fix both by adding a second interface and encouraging users to switch. Now if a user were to report that these off-node allocations are actually creating problems in real life I would fix it. But I'm fairly certain that remote access costs are overshadowed by the reclaim stalls this mechanism creates. So what I was trying to say above is that I don't see a point in complicating the v1 implementation for a questionable minor optimization when v2 is already being added to address much more severe shortcomings in v1. -- 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>