Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:43:44 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2 2/2] x86, acpi: Parse all SRAT cpu entries even have cpu num limitation |
| |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> git bisect seems to narrow this down to the change below. > > Thanks, > Venki > > $ git bisect visualize > commit 50f2d7f682f9c0ed58191d0982fe77888d59d162 > Author: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de> > Date: Thu Sep 30 17:34:10 2010 +0530 > > x86, numa: Assign CPUs to nodes in round-robin manner on fake NUMA > > commit d9c2d5ac6af87b4491bff107113aaf16f6c2b2d9 "x86, numa: Use near(er) > online node instead of roundrobin for NUMA" changed NUMA initialization on > Intel to choose the nearest online node or first node. Fake NUMA would be > better of with round-robin initialization, instead of the all CPUS on > first node. Change the choice of first node, back to round-robin. > > For testing NUMA kernel behaviour without cpusets and NUMA aware > applications, it would be better to have cpus in different nodes, rather > than all in a single node. With cpusets migration of tasks scenarios > cannot not be tested. > > I guess having it round-robin shouldn't affect the use cases for all cpus > on the first node. > > The code comments in arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c:759 indicate that this used to > be the case, which was changed by commit d9c2d5ac6. It changed from > roundrobin to nearer or first node. And I couldn't find any reason for > this change in its changelog. > > Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >
Peter just merged my NUMA emulation fixes into the x86 tree, could you try applying Yinghai's series on top of x86/linux-2.6-tip.git#x86/numa and see if the problem persists?
On a different topic: Yinghai, do you think you could base your series off of Tejun's x86_32/x86_64 NUMA unification series since it already duplicates some of the work?
| |