Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:19:17 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm |
| |
On 06/29/2012 03:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 20:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >>> >>> I am not convinced all architectures that have CONFIG_NUMA >>> need to be a requirement, since some of them (eg. Alpha) >>> seem to be lacking a maintainer nowadays. >> >> Still, this NUMA balancing stuff is not a small tweak to load-balancing. >> Its a very significant change is how you schedule. Having such great >> differences over architectures isn't something I look forward to.
I am not too worried about the performance of architectures that are essentially orphaned :)
> Also, Andrea keeps insisting arch support is trivial, so I don't see the > problem.
Getting it implemented in one or two additional architectures would be good, to get a template out there that can be used by other architecture maintainers.
-- All rights reversed
| |