From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:26:49 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20051003.142649.56153089.taka@valinux.co.jp> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/07][RFC] i386: NUMA emulation From: Hirokazu Takahashi In-Reply-To: References: <1128093825.6145.26.camel@localhost> <20051002202157.7b54253d.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: pj@sgi.com Cc: magnus.damm@gmail.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, magnus@valinux.co.jp, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, > > In theory at least, I applaud Magnus's work here. The assymetry of the > > SMP/NUMA define structure has always annoyed me slightly, and only been > > explainable in my view as a consequence of the historical order of > > development. I had a PC with a second memory board in an ISA slot, > > which would qualify as a one CPU, two Memory Node system. > > > > Or what byte us in the future (that PC was a long time ago), the kinks > > in the current setup might be a hitch in our side as we extend to > > increasingly interesting architectures. > > Nice to hear that you like the idea. > > Maybe I should have broken down my patches into three smaller sets: > > 1) i386: NUMA without SMP > 2) CPUSETS: NUMA || SMP > 3) i386: NUMA emulation > > If people like 1) then it's probably a good idea to convert other > architectures too. Both 2) and 3) above are separate but related > issues. And now seems like a good time to solve 2). > > So, Paul, please let me know if you prefer SMP || NUMA or no > depencencies in the Kconfig. When I know that I will create a new > patch that hopefully can get into -mm later on. The latter seems a good idea to me if you're going to enhance CPUSETS acceptable for CPUMETER or something like that. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org