From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com (mail-pd0-f176.google.com [209.85.192.176]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970216B0031 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w10so14455013pde.21 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:00:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com (LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com. [156.147.1.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id fu1si13694511pbc.284.2014.02.16.23.00.41 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:00:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:00:51 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] topology: support node_numa_mem() for determining the fallback node Message-ID: <20140217070051.GE3468@lge.com> References: <1391674026-20092-2-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20140207054819.GC28952@lge.com> <20140210191321.GD1558@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140211074159.GB27870@lge.com> <20140213065137.GA10860@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140213065137.GA10860@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Han Pingtian , Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , Matt Mackall , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Wanpeng Li On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:51:37PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Hi Joonsoo, > Also, given that only ia64 and (hopefuly soon) ppc64 can set > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES, does that mean x86_64 can't have > memoryless nodes present? Even with fakenuma? Just curious. I don't know, because I'm not expert on NUMA system :) At first glance, fakenuma can't be used for testing CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES. Maybe some modification is needed. 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