![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:26 am, Nick Piggin wrote: > You might have the theoretical problem of ending up with more than > one disjoint top level domain (ie. no overlap, basically partitioning > the CPUs). Yes, we'll have several disjoint per-node cpu spans for a large system, but nearby nodes *will* overlap with more distant nodes than any given node, so I think we're covered, unless I'm misunderstanding something. > No doubt you could come up with something provably correct, however > it might just be good enough to examine the end result and check that > it is good. At least while you test different configurations. Right. And ultimately, I think we'll want the hierarchy I mentioned in the comments, that'll cover us a little better I think. Jesse - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||