* David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Commit-ID: 3a0fea961b98d1838f35dba51a639d40f4a5589f
> > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/3a0fea961b98d1838f35dba51a639d40f4a5589f
> > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > AuthorDate: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:56:08 +0100
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CommitDate: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:16:27 +0200
> >
> > sched/numa: Introduce sys_numa_{t,m}bind()
> >
>
> This depends on 931ea9d1a6e0 ("rcu: Implement per-domain
> single-threaded call_srcu() state machine") from core/rcu.
Indeed ...
I'll rebase it to a (by that time probably upstream) srcu commit
after the merge window, once we have more fixes, have
incorporated suggestions, etc. - but it's still essentially an
RFC topic: [*]
Fundamentally, do people agree with the 'single home node'
approach to begin with? We could turn it into a node mask,
but that complicates things.
For example if there's a hierarchy of nodes, low latency and
high latency ones, then it might be valid to limit to a high
level (high latency) node and not specify the lower level node -
while the kernel would still know about the lower level nodes as
well.
Managing locality in a non-trivial cache hierarchy is hard :-/
Thanks,
Ingo
[*] I should probably move this to the tip:RFC/sched/numa
branch, to make it clear what the status of the branch is,
from the commit notification emails.
--
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
|