On Monday 06 August 2007 11:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I agree that the reserve pool should be per-node in the end, but I > > do not think that serves the interest of simplifying the initial > > patch set. How about a numa performance patch that adds onto the > > end of Peter's series? > > Trouble with keeping this per node is that all the code dealing with > the reserve needs to keep per-cpu state, which given that the system > is really crawling at that moment, seems excessive.
It does. I was suggesting that Christoph think about the NUMA part, our job just to save the world ;-) Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
