[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171107195624.dd4rlqnjnitqkvai@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:56:24 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, imammedo@...hat.com, prarit@...hat.com,
toshi.kani@...com, brice.goglin@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86, sched: allow topolgies where NUMA nodes share
an LLC
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:22:19AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> FWIW, I don't consider the current situation broken. Nobody ever
> promised the kernel that a NUMA node would never happen inside a socket,
> or inside a cache boundary enumerated in CPUID.
Right, I don't think the name matters. A synthetic flag which you set in
.../cpu/intel.c for each SNC configuration and then check said flag in
topology setup code is cleaner than having to add all those vendor/model
checks ...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists