lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/49] Automatic NUMA Balancing v10
    On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:18:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
    >
    > > > This is prototype only but what I was using as a reference
    > > > to see could I spot a problem in yours. It has not been even
    > > > boot tested but avoids remote->remote copies, contending on
    > > > PTL or holding it longer than necessary (should anyway)
    > >
    > > So ... because time is running out and it would be nice to
    > > progress with this for v3.8, I'd suggest the following
    > > approach:
    > >
    > > - Please send your current tree to Linus as-is. You already
    > > have my Acked-by/Reviewed-by for its scheduler bits, and my
    > > testing found your tree to have no regression to mainline,
    > > plus it's a nice win in a number of NUMA-intense workloads.
    > > So it's a good, monotonic step forward in terms of NUMA
    > > balancing, very close to what the bits I'm working on need as
    > > infrastructure.
    > >
    > > - I'll rebase all my devel bits on top of it. Instead of
    > > removing the migration bandwidth I'll simply increase it for
    > > testing - this should trigger similarly aggressive behavior.
    > > I'll try to touch as little of the mm/ code as possible, to
    > > keep things debuggable.
    >
    > One minor last-minute request/nit before you send it to Linus,
    > would you mind doing a:
    >
    > CONFIG_BALANCE_NUMA => CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
    >
    > rename please? (I can do it for you if you don't have the time.)
    >
    > CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING is really what fits into our existing NUMA
    > namespace, CONFIG_NUMA, CONFIG_NUMA_EMU - and, more importantly,
    > the ordering of words follows the common generic -> less generic
    > ordering we do in the kernel for config names and methods.
    >
    > So it would fit nicely into existing Kconfig naming schemes:
    >
    > CONFIG_TRACING
    > CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING
    > CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING
    >
    > etc.
    >

    Yes, that makes sense. I should have spotted the rationale. I also took
    the liberty of renaming the command-line parameter and the variables to
    be consistent with this.

    --
    Mel Gorman
    SUSE Labs


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-12-11 17:01    [W:3.287 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site