lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-11 19:27    [W:0.072 / U:3.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site