[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090407075908.GL17934@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:59:08 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Chris Worley <worleys@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Off topic: Numactl "distance" wrong
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:44:21AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of any that does. In general applications usually
> > only use the bare basics of NUMA API (if at all), the fancy stuff tends
> > to be more slideware.
> >
> > If it's true then the correct place would be to fix the BIOS.
> >
>
> We already verify that each node has local distance to itself and that its
> distance to any other node is greater than local when determining whether
> the SLIT is valid.
>
> It would also be possible to verify that the distance between two
> localities is described consistently in the table (like in the following
> patch).
Do you have an real-world example where this is wrong?
>
> I do think it would be helpful to add an acpi=noslit option, however, that
> would disable parsing the SLIT if it is known to incorrectly describe the
> physical topology of the system.
The check heuristic handles this. I am not aware of a case where it really
fails and let's something really bogus through.
In general this thread seems to contain much more speculation than
facts.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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