From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266512AbUGPOnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:43:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266516AbUGPOnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:43:19 -0400 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:22141 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266512AbUGPOnR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:43:17 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [PATCH] reduce inter-node balancing frequency Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:42:39 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-kernel , John Hawkes References: <200407151829.20069.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <200407152158.17605.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <2700000.1089956404@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <2700000.1089956404@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407161042.39748.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, July 16, 2004 1:40 am, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Arch code. Arch code. Arch code ;-) Or at least base it of nr_cpus or > numnodes. Seriously ... a 2x or 4x opteron obviously needs different > parameters from a 16x x440 or a 512x SGI box ... why we have a flexible > infrastructure that can stand on its head and do backflips, and then > we don't use it at all is a mystery to me ;-) > > I'd even go so far as to suggest there should be NO default settings for > NUMA, only in arch code - that'd make people actually think about it. > If there are, they should be based off the topo infrastructure, not static > values. Yep, no arguments here. I agree about not having default NUMA settings too, having them only in arch code would be best. At least until we have a few NUMA architectures using this stuff, then we can refactor out the common code if it makes sense later. Jesse