On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 10:47 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 17:35 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I've also said many times over that I absolutely detest all the async > > > stuff because it messes up accounting. And until someone comes up with a > > > sane means of sorting that I'll stick to migrate-on-fault. > > > > The other nice advantage of migrate-on-fault is that you don't have to > > play lifetime games with vmas. This much simplifies that aspect. > > The problem with migrate on fault in the past has been that there was no > consistent benefit from the overhead added to the system. Useless page > migration is a bit expensive. I'm not sure I follow.. having the page local is a win, presuming you can limit the migration rate to something low in relation to the cost of remote accesses. How does it matter how you migrate? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html