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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:58 EST