* Rik van Riel [off-list ref] [2012-06-29 15:19:17]:

On 06/29/2012 03:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 20:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:

quoted

I am not convinced all architectures that have CONFIG_NUMA
need to be a requirement, since some of them (eg. Alpha)
seem to be lacking a maintainer nowadays.

Still, this NUMA balancing stuff is not a small tweak to load-balancing.
Its a very significant change is how you schedule. Having such great
differences over architectures isn't something I look forward to.

I am not too worried about the performance of architectures
that are essentially orphaned :)

quoted

Also, Andrea keeps insisting arch support is trivial, so I don't see the
problem.

Getting it implemented in one or two additional architectures
would be good, to get a template out there that can be used by
other architecture maintainers.

I am currently porting the framework over to powerpc.  I will share
the initial patches in couple of days.

--Vaidy

--
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>