On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote: > This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or > "node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though. > Both AMD and Intel x86_64 discovery code will determine a CPU's physical > node and use that node when calling numa_add_cpu() to associate that CPU > with the node, but numa_add_cpu() treats the node argument as a fake > node. This physical node may not exist within the fake nodespace, and > even if it does, it will likely incorrectly associate a CPU with a fake > memory node that may not share the same underlying physical NUMA node. > > Similarly, the PCI code which determines the node of the PCI bus saves > it in the pci_sysdata structure. This node then propagates down to other > buses and devices which hang off the PCI bus, and is used to specify a > node when allocating memory. The purpose is to provide NUMA locality, > but the node is a physical node, and the memory allocation code expects > a fake node argument. Sorry, but when you ask for NUMA emulation you will get it. I don't see any point in a "half way only for some subsystems I like" NUMA emulation. It's unlikely that your ideas of where it is useful and where is not matches other NUMA emulation user's ideas too. Besides adding such a secondary node space would be likely a huge long term mainteance issue. I just can it see breaking with every non trivial change. NACK. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/