From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: DISCONTIGMEM is deprecated Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:21:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20190424122155.GT18914@techsingularity.net> References: <20190419094335.GJ18914@techsingularity.net> <20190419140521.GI7751@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190421063859.GA19926@rapoport-lnx> <20190421132606.GJ7751@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190421211604.GN18914@techsingularity.net> <20190423071354.GB12114@infradead.org> <20190424113352.GA6278@rapoport-lnx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190424113352.GA6278@rapoport-lnx> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Mikulas Patocka , James Bottomley , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:33:53PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:13:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:16:04PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > 32-bit NUMA systems should be non-existent in practice. The last NUMA > > > system I'm aware of that was both NUMA and 32-bit only died somewhere > > > between 2004 and 2007. If someone is running a 64-bit capable system in > > > 32-bit mode with NUMA, they really are just punishing themselves for fun. > > > > Can we mark it as BROKEN to see if someone shouts and then remove it > > a year or two down the road? Or just kill it off now.. > > How about making SPARSEMEM default for x86-32? > While an improvement, I tend to agree with Christoph that marking it BROKEN as a patch on top of this makes sense and wait to see who, if anyone, screams. If it's quiet for long enough then we can remove it entirely. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:21:56 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: DISCONTIGMEM is deprecated Message-ID: <20190424122155.GT18914@techsingularity.net> References: <20190419094335.GJ18914@techsingularity.net> <20190419140521.GI7751@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190421063859.GA19926@rapoport-lnx> <20190421132606.GJ7751@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190421211604.GN18914@techsingularity.net> <20190423071354.GB12114@infradead.org> <20190424113352.GA6278@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190424113352.GA6278@rapoport-lnx> To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Mikulas Patocka , James Bottomley , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Message-ID: <20190424122156.w94xEjSzdFB3Doe2mim1bMfeCzLKk8SX_qvbOjSBL_8@z> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:33:53PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:13:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:16:04PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > 32-bit NUMA systems should be non-existent in practice. The last NUMA > > > system I'm aware of that was both NUMA and 32-bit only died somewhere > > > between 2004 and 2007. If someone is running a 64-bit capable system in > > > 32-bit mode with NUMA, they really are just punishing themselves for fun. > > > > Can we mark it as BROKEN to see if someone shouts and then remove it > > a year or two down the road? Or just kill it off now.. > > How about making SPARSEMEM default for x86-32? > While an improvement, I tend to agree with Christoph that marking it BROKEN as a patch on top of this makes sense and wait to see who, if anyone, screams. If it's quiet for long enough then we can remove it entirely. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs