lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Define _PAGE_NUMA with unused physical address bits PMD and PTE levels
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:04:48AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:59:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 04/08/2014 01:51 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:16 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > >> <snark>
> > >>
> > >> Of course, it would also be preferable if Amazon (or anything else) didn't need Xen PV :(
> > >
> > > Well Amazon doesn't expose NUMA on PV, only on HVM guests.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but Amazon is one of the main things keeping Xen PV alive as far as
> > I can tell, which means the support gets built in, and so on.
>
> Taking the snarkiness aside, the issue here is that even on guests
> without NUMA exposed the problem shows up. That is the 'mknuma' are
> still being called even if the guest topology is not NUMA!
>
> Which brings a question - why isn't the mknuma and its friends gatted by
> an jump_label machinery or such?
>
> Mel, any particular reasons why it couldn't be done this way?

Hmm,. I thought we disabled all that when there was only the 1 node. All
this should be driven from task_tick_numa() which only gets called when
numabalancing_enabled, and that _should_ be false when nr_nodes == 1.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-09 18:01    [W:0.049 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site