Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 May 2006 11:34:39 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error |
| |
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > I'll be darned. I never knew it was even possible to run x86 numa kernels > > on non-numa boxen. I'd have tested about 1000000 of Christoph Lameter's > > patches if someone had told me. Yes, it's useful. > > If you want to use it for that I would suggest to port the numa emulation > code at least - two or four nodes tends to find more problems than a single > node. > > But testing on a 64bit box - even with numa emulation - would be much > better because on 32bit ZONE_NORMAL often is node 0 only and you won't > get much numaness for kernel objects.
That's an excellent point - most developers who are likely to want to test NUMA have x86_64 boxes and x86_64 has NUMA-emulation-on-SMP. I'd semi-forgotten that it existed.
This rather weakens the reasons for retaining support for NUMA-on-non-summit-x86. Ingo?
> > I guess the concern here is that we don't want people building these > > frankenkernels and then sending us bug reports against them. > > Well it will still increase the bug numbers you care so much about.
Not really. If a bug affects something we don't care about (like this) I'll just ignore it. I care about the number of busted machines out there, not the bug counts...
> Another reason I don't like it is that it's ugly and reimplements > parts of ACPI on its own for no reason.
So shouldn't such a patch remove that code rather than panicing?
- 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/
| |