From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A77A6B0071 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.82]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oALLkDHe027166 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:46:13 -0800 Received: from gyd8 (gyd8.prod.google.com [10.243.49.200]) by kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oALLkBgj020417 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:46:12 -0800 Received: by gyd8 with SMTP id 8so4036797gyd.23 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:46:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:46:07 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86: add numa=possible command line option In-Reply-To: <20101121142615.GI9099@hack> Message-ID: References: <20101117075128.GA30254@shaohui> <20101118041407.GA2408@shaohui> <20101118062715.GD17539@linux-sh.org> <20101118052750.GD2408@shaohui> <20101119003225.GB3327@shaohui> <20101121142615.GI9099@hack> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="531368966-2030196969-1290375970=:26304" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico_Wang?= Cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Shaohui Zheng , Paul Mundt , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Yinghai Lu , Haicheng Li , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --531368966-2030196969-1290375970=:26304 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, AmA(C)rico Wang wrote: > I am not sure how much value of making this dynamic, > for CPU, we do this at compile time, i.e. NR_CPUS, > so how about NR_NODES? > This is outside the scope of node hotplug emulation, it needs to be built on top of whatever the kernel implements. > Also, numa=possible= is not as clear as numa=max=, for me at least. > I like name, but it requires that you know how many nodes that system already has. In other words, numa=possible=4 allows you to specify that 4 additional nodes will be possible, but initially offline, for this or other purposes. numa=max=4 would be no-op if the system actually had 4 nodes. I chose numa=possible over numa=additional because it is more clearly tied to node_possible_map, which is the only thing it modifies. --531368966-2030196969-1290375970=:26304-- -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org