lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] Relax restrictions on setting CONFIG_NUMA on x86 II
On (23/01/08 14:48), Andi Kleen didst pronounce:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008 12:24:36 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On (23/01/08 12:15), Andi Kleen didst pronounce:
> > > Anyways from your earlier comments it sounds like you're trying to add
> > > SRAT parsing to CONFIG_NUMAQ. Since that's redundant with the old
> > > implementation it doesn't sound like a very useful thing to do.
> >
> > No, that would not be useful at all as it's redundant as you point out. The
> > only reason to add it is if the Opteron box can figure out the CPU-to-node
> > affinity.
>
> Assuming srat_32.c was fixed to not crash on Opteron it would likely
> do that already without further changes.
>

Understood.

> > :| The patches applied so far are about increasing test coverage, not SRAT
> > messing.
>
> Test coverage of the NUMAQ kernel?
>

NUMA in general. I don't really care about NUMAQ as such except that it
continues to shake out the occasional bug that can be difficult to reproduce
elsewhere.

> If you wanted to increase test coverage of 32bit NUMA kernels the right
> strategy would be to fix srat_32.
>

I will try and do that then instead of trying to merge the SRAT parsers.
Based on this thread, my understanding is that an attempted merge would only
open up a can of hurt, probably causing regressions in the process.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-23 15:17    [W:0.071 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site