From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (E23SMTP01.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp01.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C86DDDEB for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:38:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0RFd5Ps030582 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:39:05 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m0RFfoeU290938 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:41:50 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m0RFcEtX009820 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:38:14 +1100 Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:31:47 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fake NUMA emulation for PowerPC (Take 2) Message-ID: <20080127150147.GA10914@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20071207223714.11448.91386.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <1200634493.7806.0.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1200635099.7806.3.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20080126071339.GA25328@balbir.in.ibm.com> <18332.28991.658933.763115@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <18332.28991.658933.763115@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, LKML Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , * Paul Mackerras [2008-01-27 22:55:43]: > Balbir Singh writes: > > > Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you > > please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it > > seemed to work fine there. > > There are a couple of other changes in behaviour that your patch > introduces, and I'd like to understand them better before taking the > patch. First, with your patch we don't set nodes online if they end > up having no memory in them because of the memory limit, whereas > previously we did. Secondly, in the case where we don't have NUMA > information, we now set node 0 online after adding each LMB, whereas > previously we only set it online once. > > If in fact these changes are benign, then your patch description > should mention them and explain why they are benign. > Yes, they are. I'll try and justify the changes with a good detailed changelog. If people prefer it, I can hide fake NUMA nodes under a config option, so that it does not come enabled by default. Thanks for keeping me honest. > Paul. > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL