From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:53:03 +0000 Subject: Re: 2.5.72 for ia64 released Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:49:33AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:45:19 -0700, jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes) said: > > >> I thought the DISCONTIGMEM support is making assumptions about the > >> physical memory layout. If this is still true, DISCONTIGMEM and > >> GENERIC cannot go together. > > Jesse> No, the discontig patch I posted earlier should allow this. We've > Jesse> tested it quite a bit in 2.4. > > I'm not questioning whether it works on SGI, what I'm asking is > whether it will work on _all_ possible NUMA architectures, or just on > SN2. Yeah, that's what I meant. Jack's patch to 2.4 has been tested on sn2, DIG, zx1, NEC, and Bull machines, as a generic kernel for the first three at least (don't know what NEC and Bull did for their testing). > >> I suspect it would be more preferable if you could make it possible > >> for a non-NUMA kernel to boot on your machine. > > Jesse> That might be nice, but I'd rather have CONFIG_GENERIC turn on > Jesse> CONFIG_NUMA. It shouldn't get in the way of non-NUMA machines... > > What I worry about is that some distributions may end up shipping > GENERIC kernels, with no easy way to build an optimized kernel. It's > reasonable to expect highend customers to build their own kernels, but > I don't think that's quite as reasonable to expect the same from > someone who buys a workstation. So you're worried about the performance penalty of turning on NUMA for generic kernels? Jesse