From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:07:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix build_zonelists for CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA 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, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:56:21PM +0200, Erich Focht wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2003 21:59, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > ACPI 2.0 SLIT locality table: > > 010 020 022 042 > > 020 010 042 022 > > 022 042 010 020 > > 042 022 020 010 > > That unsymmetric??? Interesting... Of course this saves you the > headache of explicitely round-robin. This is just a small system, only 8p, and I was wrong when I said that we wouldn't have SLIT tables like the one below. On a larger system (above 8 nodes) we'll have 4 nodes in each proximity domain, so round-robin would help us there. The system above has a topology like this: ------ fast ------ | |__v___| | | 3 | | 2 | ------ ------ | <- slow -> | ------ ------ | |______| | | 1 | ^ | 0 | ------ fast ------ Which explains the SLIT. Of course, on a larger system we'd have the slow links all connect to a router, which would mean we'd have multiple nodes in the same domain. > > Which I think you were worried about? > > I'm still worried about the "normal" kind of machines with more > symmetric node-distances. TX-7 for example has Yeah, sorry. I was smokin' something when I posted that message. I really do understand the issue and agree that it's a problem that we should fix :) > 10 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 > 15 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 > 15 15 10 15 20 20 20 20 > 15 15 15 10 20 20 20 20 > 20 20 20 20 10 15 15 15 > 20 20 20 20 15 10 15 15 > 20 20 20 20 15 15 10 15 > 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 10 Thanks, Jesse