Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation

[Paul Jackson]

Ingo wrote:
> we should default to local.

Agreed.  There is much software and systems management expectations
sitting on top of this, that have certain expectations of the default
memory placement behaviour, to a rough degree, of the system.

They are expecting node-local placement.

We would only change that default if it was shown to be substantially
wrong headed in a substantial number of cases.  It has not been
so shown.  It is either an adequate or quite desirable default for
most cases.

Rather we need to consider optional behaviour, for use on workloads
for which other policies are worth developing and invoking.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/