[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d811f43-e966-4885-9a2e-30b0b71466e0@email.android.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:32:48 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...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!
If NUMAQ is breaking real stuff we can kill it by marking it BROKEN. Rip-out is 3.10 at this stage.
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>v3.9 - any non-trivial patch in the stage of being contemplated near
>the end of the
>v3.9 merge window is most likely v3.10 material.
>
>Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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