From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752010Ab2LPXTn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:19:43 -0500
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:62890 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751442Ab2LPXTm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:19:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20121212100338.GS1009@suse.de>
References: <20121212100338.GS1009@suse.de>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:19:20 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: tnQfYKACxVRqsdt52Fdh8tskbNU
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzedbhcuo-WObUjigrXGuG2VGLqDOvh_HFA9Cn_BRkwjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Automatic NUMA Balancing V11
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
        Alex Shi <lkml.alex@gmail.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> This is a pull request for "Automatic NUMA Balancing V11". The list

Ok, guys, I've pulled this and pushed out. There were some conflicts
with both the VM changes and with the scheduler tree, but they were
pretty small and looked simple, so I fixed them up and hope they all
work.

Has anybody tested the impact on single-node systems? If distros
enable this by default (and it does have 'default y', which is a big
no-no for new features - I undid that part) then there will be tons of
people running this without actually having multiple sockets. Does it
gracefully avoid pointless overheads for this case?

Anyway, hopefully we'll have a more real numa balancing for 3.9, and
this is still considered a reasonable base for that work.

                  Linus