Re: [PATCH 2.5.45] NUMA Scheduler (1/2)

[Robert Love]

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