![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Monday 21 August 2006 10:42, Magnus Damm wrote: > No problem. The second URL pointed to a x86_64 version where I tried to > break out code to make some kind of generic NUMA emulation layer. At > that time no one seemed interested in that strategy as a simple resource > control solution so I gave that up. > > For x86_64 I think it's only worth mucking around with the code if > people believe that it is the right way to go for in-kernel resource > control. Does it by chance fix the existing code? Andrew has been complaining (and I could reproduce) that numa=fake=16 makes it triple fault at boot. The theory was that it didn't like empty nodes which can happen this way. I unfortunately didn't have time to look into it closely so far. > The x86_64 patches above include code to divide each real NUMA node into > several smaller emulated nodes, but that is kind of pointless if people > only use it for non-resource control purposes, ie just to play with > CPUSETS and NUMA on non-NUMA hardware. For simple purposes like that I > think the existing NUMA emulation code for x86_64 works perfectly well. > > I still think that i386 users would benefit from NUMA emulation though. > If you want me to up-port the i386-specific code just let me know. I personally have my doubts about 32bit NUMA -- it will always have ZONE_NORMAL only on a single node, which limits it very much. But ok I guess it might be useful to somebody. -Andi - 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: 2006-08-21 09:07 [W:0.676 / U:0.220 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||