[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200611271903.04669.ak@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:03:04 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: rohitseth@...gle.com
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...washington.edu>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch3/4]: fake numa for x86_64 patches
On Monday 27 November 2006 18:59, Rohit Seth wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 10:04 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 05:34:47PM -0800, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > > Fix the existing numa=fake so that ioholes are appropriately configured.
> > > Currently machines that have sizeable IO holes don't work with
> > > numa=fake>4. This patch tries to equally partition the total available
> > > memory in equal size chunk. The minimum size of the fake node is set to
> > > 32MB.
> >
> > This patch seems to do far more than advertised in the change log?
> >
> > You're conflicting badly with Amul's numa hash function rewrite for example.
> >
>
> Both of these patches are mucking with hash function and
> populate_memnodemap. I like Amul's approach of doing dynamic allocation
> of numa hash map so that it can support >64GB of memory space. I will
> resend the patches on top of his patch (incorporating your other
> feedback).
FYI I dropped Amul's patch temporarily because it causes boot failures on
some systems. But it will be likely readded once that problem is fixed.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists