From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751936Ab3CALAB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 06:00:01 -0500
Received: from mail-ee0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:61368 "EHLO
	mail-ee0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751462Ab3CAK77 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 05:59:59 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:59:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@mbligh.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
        Don Morris <don.morris@hp.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
        a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, jarkko.sakkinen@intel.com,
        tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!
Message-ID: <20130301105954.GB2625@gmail.com>
References: <512B7D10.4060304@tpi.com>
 <512B8407.2090807@canonical.com>
 <512BD753.4080001@hp.com>
 <CAE9FiQVY4io_mO3PhTtE6FbGUgo1uZKKXO=pjx_FoZ1JuZmsAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9FiQXs3MyUW+hJhupJgL-t9sYmT5GdeStWD2vMjsJG+6qCrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9FiQXHNm+E+PchPsReOykVPNkRrC8ttjDpWWs=njANT+Wf1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJErZ53dadbU3oM4Prhi3n_R+Lsbp3TG=FP1=whTK5uPMpj90A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9FiQWx=FdQSH_H_PoVxUksY6rFnN6yDfwmK3w8OTbCPLM1+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJErZ53AWMP688OV+J0qiJii2y=qzEjLq=WshAQbMhEdyx33cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <51304C96.3010801@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51304C96.3010801@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 02/25/2013 08:51 PM, Martin Bligh wrote:
> >> Do you mean we can remove numaq x86 32bit code now?
> > 
> > Wouldn't bother me at all. The machine is from 1995, end of life c. 2000? Was 
> > useful in the early days of getting NUMA up and running on Linux, but is now too 
> > old to be a museum piece, really.
> 
> I'd be very happy to get the NUMAQ code ripped out.  I am wondering if there are 
> any reasons to keep any 32-bit x86 NUMA code at all.

Not much I suspect.

Thanks,

	Ingo