Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754983Ab2GADK0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:10:26 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:64347 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754610Ab2GADKZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:10:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4FEFBF93.3010608@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 11:10:11 +0800 From: Nai Xia Reply-To: nai.xia@gmail.com Organization: NJU User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: dlaor@redhat.com, Andrea Arcangeli , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Hillf Danton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dan Smith , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Suresh Siddha , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Lai Jiangshan , Bharata B Rao , Lee Schermerhorn , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Christoph Lameter , Alex Shi , Mauricio Faria de Oliveira , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Don Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm References: <1340888180-15355-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> <1340888180-15355-14-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> <1340895238.28750.49.camel@twins> <20120629125517.GD32637@gmail.com> <4FEDDD0C.60609@redhat.com> <1340995986.28750.114.camel@twins> <20120630012338.GY6676@redhat.com> <4FEE9310.1050908@redhat.com> <1341100552.2563.48.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1341100552.2563.48.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1713 Lines: 46 On 2012年07月01日 07:55, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 14:58 +0800, Nai Xia wrote: >> If you insist on ignoring any constructive suggestions from others, > > But there is nothing constructive about your criticism. > > You are basically saying that the whole thing cannot work unless it's > based on 20 years of research. Duh ! 1. You quote me wrong: I said "group all pages to one node" is correct, and highly possible to play the major role in your benchmarks. Sampling is completely broken from my point of view. PZ's patch also has similar idea of "group all pages to one node" which I think is also correct. 2. My suggestion to Andrea: Do some more comparative benchmarks to see what's really happening inside, instead of only macro benchmarks. You need to have 20 hours of carefully designed survey research for a new algorithm, instead of reading my mail and spending 20min to give a conclusion. If you cannot see the constructiveness of my suggestion. That's your problem, not mine. I understand the hard feelings of seeing the possible brokenness of a thing you've already spend a lot of time. But that's the way people seeking for truth. You see, you guys has spent quite sometime to defend your points, if this time were used to follow my advise doing some further analysis maybe you've already got some valuable information. Dor was right, we all made our points. And we are all busy. Let's stop it. Thanks. > > Ben. > > -- 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/