[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50C9F19D.8060209@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:49 -0500
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add node physical memory range to sysfs
(12/12/12 11:49 PM), Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 06:03 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:48 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> But if we went and did it per-DIMM (showing which physical addresses and
>>> NUMA nodes a DIMM maps to), wouldn't that be redundant with this
>>> proposed interface?
>>
>> If DIMMs overlap between nodes, then we wouldn't have an exact range for
>> a node in question. Having both approaches would complement each other.
>
> How is that possible? If NUMA nodes are defined by distances from CPUs
> to memory, how could a DIMM have more than a single distance to any
> given CPU?
numa_emulation? just guess.
--
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