[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702070602221.14056@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:03:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
GOTO <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.20][PATCH] fix mempolicy error check on a system with
memory-less-node
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
> should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node instead.
> At least x86-64 ensures that.
Yes I wish we would do it that way on all platforms. SGI's SN2 does that
too.
-
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