Andrea Arcangeli <aarca...@redhat.com> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> Since the NUMA_INTERLEAVE_HIT statistic is useless on its own; it wants >> to be compared to either a total of interleave allocations or to a miss >> count, remove it. >> >> Fixing it would be possible, but since we've gone years without these >> statistics I figure we can continue that way. >> >> Also NUMA_HIT fully includes NUMA_INTERLEAVE_HIT so users might >> switch to using that. >> >> This cleans up some of the weird MPOL_INTERLEAVE allocation exceptions. > > It's not apparent why you need to remove it for sched-numa. I think I > see it but it'd be nicer if it would explained so one doesn't need to > read an internal bit of several patches later to understand why this > is needed.
Also it still breaks the numactl test suite, as already explained multiple times. Without the HIT counter there is no way to check interleave actually happened. I'm a bit concerned about patch kits like this ignoring review feedback? -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
