On 03/12/2010 10:10 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:00:56 -0500
> Chris Lalancette wrote:
>
>> The nodeGetInfo code was always assuming that machine had a
>> single NUMA node, which is not correct. The good news is that
>> libnuma gives us this information
Hi Chris,
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:00:56 -0500
Chris Lalancette wrote:
> The nodeGetInfo code was always assuming that machine had a
> single NUMA node, which is not correct. The good news is that
> libnuma gives us this information pretty easily, so let's
> properly report it.
>
> NOTE: With
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:45:23AM -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 06:32 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:00:56PM -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> >> The nodeGetInfo code was always assuming that machine had a
> >> single NUMA node, which is not correct. The
On 03/12/2010 06:32 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:00:56PM -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> The nodeGetInfo code was always assuming that machine had a
>> single NUMA node, which is not correct. The good news is that
>> libnuma gives us this information pretty easily, so
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:00:56PM -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> The nodeGetInfo code was always assuming that machine had a
> single NUMA node, which is not correct. The good news is that
> libnuma gives us this information pretty easily, so let's
> properly report it.
okay
> NOTE: With re
The nodeGetInfo code was always assuming that machine had a
single NUMA node, which is not correct. The good news is that
libnuma gives us this information pretty easily, so let's
properly report it.
NOTE: With recent hardware starting to support CPU hot-add
and hot-remove, both this code and the
