lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-15 20:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans