* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:46:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Someone will ask why automatic NUMA balancing hints do not use "real"
> > PROT_NONE but as it would need VMA information to do that on all
> > architectures it would mean that VMA-fixups would be required when marking
> > PTEs for NUMA hinting faults so would be expensive.
>
> Like this:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/431
>
> That used the generic PROT_NONE infrastructure and compared, on fault,
> the page protection bits against the vma->vm_page_prot bits?
>
> So the objection to that approach was the vma-> dereference in
> pte_numa() ?
I think the real underlying objection was that PTE_NUMA was the last
leftover from AutoNUMA, and removing it would have made it not a
'compromise' patch set between 'AutoNUMA' and 'sched/numa', but would
have made the sched/numa approach 'win' by and large.
The whole 'losing face' annoyance that plagues all of us (me
included).
I didn't feel it was important to the general logic of adding access
pattern aware NUMA placement logic to the scheduler, and I obviously
could not ignore the NAKs from various mm folks insisting on PTE_NUMA,
so I conceded that point and Mel built on that approach as well.
Nice it's being cleaned up, and I'm pretty happy about how NUMA
balancing ended up looking like.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
