From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932266AbVHRUDE (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:03:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932418AbVHRUDE (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:03:04 -0400 Received: from mailfe16.tele2.fr ([212.247.155.236]:13739 "EHLO swip.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932266AbVHRUDD (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:03:03 -0400 X-T2-Posting-ID: dCnToGxhL58ot4EWY8b+QGwMembwLoz1X2yB7MdtIiA= Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:02:55 +0200 From: Samuel Thibault To: Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: idle task's task_t allocation on NUMA machines Message-ID: <20050818200255.GI8822@bouh.labri.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Samuel Thibault , Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20050818140829.GB8123@implementation.labri.fr> <4304A6DF.6040703@cosmosbay.com> <20050818194941.GH8822@bouh.labri.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20050818194941.GH8822@bouh.labri.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i-nntp Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Samuel Thibault, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 21:49:41 +0200, a écrit : > Eric Dumazet, le Thu 18 Aug 2005 17:18:55 +0200, a écrit : > > I believe IRQ stacks are also allocated on node 0, that seems more serious. > > For the i386 architecture at least, yes: they are statically defined in > arch/i386/kernel/irq.c, while they could be per_cpu. Hum, but the per_cpu areas for i386 are not numa-aware... I'm wondering: isn't the current x86_64 numa-aware implementation of per_cpu generic enough for any architecture? Regards, Samuel