On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:49:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Because we lack data on TLB range flush distributions I think we > > should still go with the conservative choice for the TLB flush > > shift. The worst case is really bad here and it's painfully obvious > > on ebizzy. > > So I'm obviously much in favor of this - I'd in fact suggest making > the conservative choice on _all_ CPU models that have aggressive TLB > range values right now, because frankly the testing used to pick those > values does not look all that convincing to me. >
I think the choices there are already reasonably conservative. I'd be reluctant to support merging a patch that made a choice on all CPU models without having access to the machines to run tests on. I don't see the Intel people volunteering to do the necessary testing. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/
