From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z6so1703923nzd for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:57:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:57:59 +0900 From: Magnus Damm Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/05] NUMA: Generic code In-Reply-To: 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, werner@almesberger.net List-ID: On 16 Nov 2005 08:48:39 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Magnus Damm writes: > > > > 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. > > I believe Werner tried to use it at some point for that and it just > didn't work very well. So it doesn't seem to be very useful for > that usecase. Sorry, but which one did not work very well? CKRM memory controller or NUMA emulation + CPUSETS? Thanks, / 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