![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi, > > In theory at least, I applaud Magnus's work here. The assymetry of the > > SMP/NUMA define structure has always annoyed me slightly, and only been > > explainable in my view as a consequence of the historical order of > > development. I had a PC with a second memory board in an ISA slot, > > which would qualify as a one CPU, two Memory Node system. > > > > Or what byte us in the future (that PC was a long time ago), the kinks > > in the current setup might be a hitch in our side as we extend to > > increasingly interesting architectures. > > Nice to hear that you like the idea. > > Maybe I should have broken down my patches into three smaller sets: > > 1) i386: NUMA without SMP > 2) CPUSETS: NUMA || SMP > 3) i386: NUMA emulation > > If people like 1) then it's probably a good idea to convert other > architectures too. Both 2) and 3) above are separate but related > issues. And now seems like a good time to solve 2). > > So, Paul, please let me know if you prefer SMP || NUMA or no > depencencies in the Kconfig. When I know that I will create a new > patch that hopefully can get into -mm later on. The latter seems a good idea to me if you're going to enhance CPUSETS acceptable for CPUMETER or something like that. Thanks. - 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: 2005-10-03 03:35 [W:0.279 / U:0.160 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||