From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754434AbYAWOPR (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752255AbYAWOPF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:05 -0500 Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:60076 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752322AbYAWOPD (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:15:01 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Andi Kleen Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apw@shadowen.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Relax restrictions on setting CONFIG_NUMA on x86 II Message-ID: <20080123141500.GB14175@csn.ul.ie> References: <20080118153529.12646.5260.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <200801231215.56741.andi@firstfloor.org> <20080123112436.GF21455@csn.ul.ie> <200801231448.09514.andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801231448.09514.andi@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (23/01/08 14:48), Andi Kleen didst pronounce: > On Wednesday 23 January 2008 12:24:36 Mel Gorman wrote: > > On (23/01/08 12:15), Andi Kleen didst pronounce: > > > Anyways from your earlier comments it sounds like you're trying to add > > > SRAT parsing to CONFIG_NUMAQ. Since that's redundant with the old > > > implementation it doesn't sound like a very useful thing to do. > > > > No, that would not be useful at all as it's redundant as you point out. The > > only reason to add it is if the Opteron box can figure out the CPU-to-node > > affinity. > > Assuming srat_32.c was fixed to not crash on Opteron it would likely > do that already without further changes. > Understood. > > :| The patches applied so far are about increasing test coverage, not SRAT > > messing. > > Test coverage of the NUMAQ kernel? > NUMA in general. I don't really care about NUMAQ as such except that it continues to shake out the occasional bug that can be difficult to reproduce elsewhere. > If you wanted to increase test coverage of 32bit NUMA kernels the right > strategy would be to fix srat_32. > I will try and do that then instead of trying to merge the SRAT parsers. Based on this thread, my understanding is that an attempted merge would only open up a can of hurt, probably causing regressions in the process. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab