Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:17 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:65030 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:16 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.45] NUMA Scheduler (1/2) From: Robert Love To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Michael Hohnbaum , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, Erich Focht In-Reply-To: <1010470000.1036108344@flay> References: <1036107098.21647.104.camel@dyn9-47-17-164.beaverton.ibm.com> <1010470000.1036108344@flay> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 31 Oct 2002 19:10:42 -0500 Message-Id: <1036109447.1067.27.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 959 Lines: 23 On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 18:52, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Just wanted to add that everyone that's been involved in this is > now in harmonious agreement about this combined solution. If you're > curious as to where the benefits come from, the differences in > kernel profiles are included below from a 16-way NUMA-Q doing a > kernel compile. Linus, although these patches are fairly straightforward and non-impacting in the !CONFIG_NUMA case, would you prefer it if a non-NUMA person who knew the scheduler (say, me) went over these patches and merged them with you? Ingo, do you have an opinion either way? I think basic NUMA support, especially in the load balancer, should make it in before 2.6. Robert Love - 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/