Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:59:48 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: NUMA: Patch for node based swapping |
| |
Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Rik van Riel wrote: > > >>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> >> >>>Any other suggestions? >> >>Since this is meant as a stop gap patch, waiting for a real >>solution, and is only relevant for big (and rare) systems, >>it would be an idea to at least leave it off by default. >> >>I think it would be safe to assume that a $100k system has >>a system administrator looking after it, while a $5k AMD64 >>whitebox might not have somebody watching its performance. > > > Ok. Will do that then. Should I submit the patch to Andrew? >
I can't see the harm in sending it after 2.6.9 if it defaults to off (maybe also make it CONFIG_NUMA).
OTOH, if it is going to be painful to remove later on, then maybe leave it local to your tree.
It's true that I have something a bit more sophisticated in the pipe, but it is going to be an uphill battle to get it and everything it depends on merged - so don't count on it for 2.6.10 :P
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |