Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:25:23 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:02:41AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> > No, NUMA implementation can skip numa_set_distance() entirely if the >> > distance is LOCAL_DISTANCE if nids are equal, REMOTE_DISTANCE >> > otherwise. In fact, any amdtopology configuraiton would behave this >> > way, so it's incorrect to fill the table with LOCAL_DISTANCE. You >> > have to check the physnid mapping and build new table whether physical >> > table exists or not. Lack of physical distance table doesn't mean all >> > nodes are LOCAL_DISTANCE. >> >> too bad. We should call numa_alloc_distance in amdtopology to set >> default value in that array. > > I'm not following. If there's no distance table, the distance is > assumed to be LOCAL between the same node and REMOTE if the nodes are > different, which is exactly the way it should be for those machines. > Why is this bad and why would you allocate distance table for such > configurations?
now even emulation have that distance array.
why keep it simple to make all path have that array?
Yinghai -- 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/
| |