From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:01:01 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] numa: mempolicy: dynamic interleave map for system init. Message-Id: <20070607200101.827d865c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20070607011701.GA14211@linux-sh.org> <20070607180108.0eeca877.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Paul Mundt , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, hugh@veritas.com, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com List-ID: On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Well I took silence as assent. > > Well, grudgingly. How far are we willing to go to support these asymmetric > setups? The NUMA code initially was designed for mostly symmetric systems > with roughly the same amount of memory on each node. The farther we go > from this the more options we will have to add special casing to deal with > these imbalances. > > With memoryless nodes we already have one issue that will ripple through > the kernel likely requiring numerous modifications and special casing. > Then we now have the ZONE_DMA issues reording the zonelists. Now we will > support systems with 1MB size nodes? We will need to modify the slab > allocators to only allocate on special processors? > Failing to support memoryless nodes was a bug, and we should continue to take bugfixes for that. Dunno about the rest - it depends upon how real-world are the problems which people hit, and upon how messy the fixes look. -- 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