On 12/02/2012 01:42 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Most of the outstanding objections against numa/core centered around Mel and Rik objecting to the PROT_NONE approach Peter implemented in numa/core. To settle that question objectively I've performed performance testing of those differences, by picking up the minimum number of essentials needed to be able to remove the PROT_NONE approach and use the PTE_NUMA approach Mel took from the AutoNUMA tree and elsewhere.
For the record, I have no objection to either of the pte marking approaches.
Rik van Riel (1): sched, numa, mm: Add credits for NUMA placement
Where did the TLB flush optimizations go? :) -- 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/
