From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757718AbZELHK2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 03:10:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753963AbZELHKS (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 03:10:18 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:57663 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753809AbZELHKR (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 03:10:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:15:31 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: David Rientjes , Jack Steiner , Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: fix node_possible_map logic -v2 Message-ID: <20090512071531.GF19296@one.firstfloor.org> References: <4A05269D.8000701@kernel.org> <4A0527CB.4020807@kernel.org> <20090511175312.GA27905@sgi.com> <4A0894A5.9000209@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0894A5.9000209@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Should it? It seems to me that CPUs 0-1 should be antipreferentially > scheduled, You could do that, but the question is if it matters. It would only make a difference on systems which are not fully loaded, and it's unclear how much. And at some point you need to use these cores anyways; usually it's much worse to not use a CPU and overload others than to use it with slower memory. Is it worth adding a lot of fixes all over hte kernel? Not clear to me. Also it's a obscure situation and it affects a lot of code, so you would likely have to continuously fight with regressions as Jack has discovered. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.