[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702071750.55283.ak@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:50:55 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
GOTO <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.20][PATCH] fix mempolicy error check on a system with memory-less-node
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> writes:
> >
> > > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> > > If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
> > > invalid.
> > > This patch adds a check whether a node has memory or not.
> >
> > 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.
>
> umm, why?
>
> A node which has CPUs and no memory is obviously physically possible and
> isn't a completely insane thing for a user to do. I'd have thought that
> the kernel should be able to cleanly and clearly handle it,
It doesn't.
> and to
> accurately present the machine's topology to the user without us having to
> go adding falsehoods like this?
a node is a piece of memory. Without memory it doesn't make sense.
-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