From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:41:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/11] Shared Policy Overview In-Reply-To: <1182987407.7199.61.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070625195224.21210.89898.sendpatchset@localhost> <1182968078.4948.30.camel@localhost> <1182987407.7199.61.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nacc@us.ibm.com, ak@suse.de List-ID: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > 1. The use is lightweight and does not impact performance. > > I agree that use of memory policies should have a net decrease in > performance. However, nothing is for free. It's a tradeoff. If you > don't need policies or if they hurt worse than they help, don't use > them. No performance impact. If locality matters and policies help > more than they cost, use them. Wel the current situation seems to be better AFAIK. Why tradeoff anything for less performance and more inconsistencies? > Maybe. or maybe something different. Laudable goals, anyway. Let's > discuss in the NUMA BOF. Would be good. I keep failing to see the point of all of this. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org