Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm
From: Peter Zijlstra <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-29 18:52:24
Also in:
lkml
From: Peter Zijlstra <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-29 18:52:24
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
quoted
I've also stated several times that forceful migration in the context of numa balancing must go.I am not convinced about this part either way. I do not see how a migration numa thread (which could potentially use idle cpu time) will be any worse than migrate on fault, which will always take away time from the userspace process.
Any NUMA stuff is long term, it really shouldn't matter on the timescale of a few jiffies. NUMA placement should also not over-ride fairness, esp. not by default. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>