On 04/08/2014 11:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I think the real underlying objection was that PTE_NUMA was the last
> leftover from AutoNUMA, and removing it would have made it not a
> 'compromise' patch set between 'AutoNUMA' and 'sched/numa', but would
> have made the sched/numa approach 'win' by and large.
>
> The whole 'losing face' annoyance that plagues all of us (me
> included).
>
> I didn't feel it was important to the general logic of adding access
> pattern aware NUMA placement logic to the scheduler, and I obviously
> could not ignore the NAKs from various mm folks insisting on PTE_NUMA,
> so I conceded that point and Mel built on that approach as well.
>
> Nice it's being cleaned up, and I'm pretty happy about how NUMA
> balancing ended up looking like.
>
How painful would it be to get rid of _PAGE_NUMA entirely? Page bits
are a highly precious commodity and saving one would be valuable.
-hpa
--
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/
