From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262617AbTJJIrn (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:47:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262675AbTJJIrn (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:47:43 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:15772 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262617AbTJJIrl (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:47:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:47:37 +0900 From: YoshiyaETO Subject: Re: 2.7 thoughts To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Stuart Longland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephan von Krawczynski , lgb@lgb.hu, Fabian.Frederick@prov-liege.be Message-id: <04d501c38f0b$2864c210$6a647c0a@eto> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <20031009115809.GE8370@vega.digitel2002.hu> <20031009165723.43ae9cb5.skraw@ithnet.com> <3F864F82.4050509@longlandclan.hopto.org> <20031010063039.GA700@holomorphy.com> <047b01c38f00$60b34840$6a647c0a@eto> <20031010074030.GB700@holomorphy.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I don't see any reason to connect it with the notion of a node. If the word "Node" is not so appropriate, I will use "Unit". And I also make it simple, "Unit" will have CPUs and/or Memory. On the other hand IO-Unit will have IOs. > The main points of contention would appear to be cooperative vs. > forcible (where I believe cooperative is acknowledged as the only I could not understand what is forcible. Everything should be cooperative, I think. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Lee Irwin III" To: "YoshiyaETO" Cc: "Stuart Longland" ; ; "Stephan von Krawczynski" ; ; Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: 2.7 thoughts > On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 04:19:46PM +1000, Stuart Longland wrote: > >>> * hotplug motherboard & entire computer too I spose ;-) > > > From: "William Lee Irwin III" > >> Um, this is worse than the above wrt. being too vague. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 04:30:27PM +0900, YoshiyaETO wrote: > > "Hotplug node" is a better explanation, I think. > > "Node" includes CPUs and/or Memory and/or some kind of IOs. > > And "Node" should be flexibly configurable also. > > I don't see any reason to connect it with the notion of a node. > > The main points of contention would appear to be cooperative vs. > forcible (where I believe cooperative is acknowledged as the only > feasible problem), and the potential connections with ZONE_HIGHMEM > wrt. constraints that would artificially introduce to 64-bit kernels. > > The fact some systems would want to do whole nodes at a time with > some cpus and io buses in tandem is largely immaterial and doesn't > simplify, complicate, or otherwise affect the VM mechanics. > > -- wli > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/