From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l8so1782749nzf for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:22:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:22:31 +0900 From: Magnus Damm Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/05] NUMA: Generic code In-Reply-To: <200511151515.05201.ak@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051110090920.8083.54147.sendpatchset@cherry.local> <200511110516.37980.ak@suse.de> <200511151515.05201.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Magnus Damm , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com List-ID: On 11/15/05, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 15 November 2005 09:34, Magnus Damm wrote: > > > > > My plan with breaking out the NUMA emulation code was to merge my i386 > > stuff with the x86_64 code, but as you say - it might be overkill. > > > > What do you think about the fact that real NUMA nodes now can be > > divided into several smaller nodes? > > Is it really needed? I never needed it. Normally numa emulation > is just for basic numa testing, and for that just an independent > split is good enough. For testing, your NUMA emulation code is perfect IMO. But for memory resource control your NUMA emulation code may be too simple. With my patch, CONFIG_NUMA_EMU provides a way to partition a machine into several smaller nodes, regardless if the machine is using NUMA or not. This NUMA emulation code together with CPUSETS could be seen as a simple alternative to the memory resource control provided by CKRM. / magnus -- 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