linux-kernel - Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:03:10 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Don Morris <don.morris@...com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	x86@...nel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com,
	tangchen@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:37:10PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'd be very happy to get the NUMAQ code ripped out.  I am wondering if
> there are any reasons to keep any 32-bit x86 NUMA code at all.

How much would it hurt us if we said 3.8 is the last kernel that
supported NUMAQ? If anyone wants the functionality, they should use 3.8
or older.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/