Messages in this thread | | | Date | 15 Jun 2004 01:49:58 +0200 | Date | Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:49:58 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: NUMA API observations |
| |
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 07:40:04AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > interleave should always fall back to other nodes. Very weird. > > Needs to be investigated. What were the actual arguments passed > > to the syscalls? > > This one looks like a bug in my code. I wasnt setting numnodes high > enough, so the node fallback lists werent being initialised for some > nodes.
Ok. Good to know.
That's a bad generic bug, right?
interleaving isn't really doing much different from an ordinary allocation, except that the numa_node_id() index to the zone table is replaced with a different number.
> > > My kernel is compiled with NR_CPUS=128, the setaffinity syscall must be > > > called with a bitmap at least as big as the kernels cpumask_t. I will > > > submit a patch for this shortly. > > > > Umm, what a misfeature. We size the buffer up to the biggest > > running CPU. That should be enough. > > > > IMHO that's just a kernel bug. How should a user space > > application sanely discover the cpumask_t size needed by the kernel? > > Whoever designed that was on crack. > > glibc now uses a select style interface. Unfortunately the interface has > changed about three times by now.
I have no plans to track the glibc interface of the week for this and numactl must run with older glibc anyways, that is why I always used an own stub to this. I am not sure they even solved the problem completely. With the upcomming numactl version it should work.
What I wonder is why IA64 worked though. We tested on it previously, but somehow didn't run into this. The regression test suite needs to check this better.
-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/
| |