Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:52:20 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 |
| |
>> > I have included a very rough patch to do ht-numa topology. I requires to >> > manually define CONFIG_NUMA and CONFIG_NUMA_SCHED. It also uses >> > num_cpunodes instead of numnodes and defines MAX_NUM_NODES to 8 if >> > CONFIG_NUMA is defined. >> >> Whilst it's fine for benchmarking, I think this kind of overlap is a >> very bad idea long-term - the confusion introduced is just asking for >> trouble. And think what's going to happen when you mix HT and NUMA. >> If we're going to use this for HT, it needs abstracting out. > > I have no issues with using HT specific bits instead of NUMA. Design wise it > would be nice if it could all be happy together, but if not, then so be it.
That's not what I meant - we can share the code, we just need to abstract it out so you don't have to turn on CONFIG_NUMA. That was the point of the pooling patch I posted at the weekend. Anyway, let's decide on the best approach first, we can clean up the code for merging later.
M.
- 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/
|  |