On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> You mentioned that if node 0 has a small ZONE_NORMAL and the ZONE_DMA for
> the system, defaulting to using ZONE_NORMAL on all nodes first would be a
> bad idea. Is that really true? Maybe for ZONE_DMA32 it is since that
> first node could have a few
On Friday, May 04, 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > Hmmm... "serious hackery", indeed! ;-)
>
> Maybe on the arch level but minimal changes to core code.
> And it is a step towards avoiding zones in NUMA.
You mentioned that if node 0 has a small
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> Hmmm... "serious hackery", indeed! ;-)
Maybe on the arch level but minimal changes to core code.
And it is a step towards avoiding zones in NUMA.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 09:18 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > I think the idea is to avoid exhausting ZONE_DMA on some NUMA boxes by
> > ordering the fallback list first by zone, then by node distance (e.g.
> > ZONE_NORMAL of local node, then
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 22:47 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:30 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, this is version 4. including Lee Schermerhon's good rework.
> > and automatic configuration at boot time.
>
> hm, this adds rather a lot of code.
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I think the idea is to avoid exhausting ZONE_DMA on some NUMA boxes by
> ordering the fallback list first by zone, then by node distance (e.g.
> ZONE_NORMAL of local node, then ZONE_NORMAL of next nearest node etc.,
> followed by ZONE_DMA of local
On Thursday, May 03, 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:30 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, this is version 4. including Lee Schermerhon's good rework.
> > and automatic configuration at boot time.
>
> hm, this adds rather a lot of code. Have we
On Thursday, May 03, 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:30 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, this is version 4. including Lee Schermerhon's good rework.
and automatic configuration at boot time.
hm, this adds rather a lot of code. Have we established
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I think the idea is to avoid exhausting ZONE_DMA on some NUMA boxes by
ordering the fallback list first by zone, then by node distance (e.g.
ZONE_NORMAL of local node, then ZONE_NORMAL of next nearest node etc.,
followed by ZONE_DMA of local node,
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 22:47 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:30 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, this is version 4. including Lee Schermerhon's good rework.
and automatic configuration at boot time.
hm, this adds rather a lot of code. Have we
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 09:18 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I think the idea is to avoid exhausting ZONE_DMA on some NUMA boxes by
ordering the fallback list first by zone, then by node distance (e.g.
ZONE_NORMAL of local node, then ZONE_NORMAL of
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
Hmmm... serious hackery, indeed! ;-)
Maybe on the arch level but minimal changes to core code.
And it is a step towards avoiding zones in NUMA.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Friday, May 04, 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
Hmmm... serious hackery, indeed! ;-)
Maybe on the arch level but minimal changes to core code.
And it is a step towards avoiding zones in NUMA.
You mentioned that if node 0 has a small
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
You mentioned that if node 0 has a small ZONE_NORMAL and the ZONE_DMA for
the system, defaulting to using ZONE_NORMAL on all nodes first would be a
bad idea. Is that really true? Maybe for ZONE_DMA32 it is since that
first node could have a few
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:30 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, this is version 4. including Lee Schermerhon's good rework.
> and automatic configuration at boot time.
hm, this adds rather a lot of code. Have we established that it's worth
it?
And it's complex - how do
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:45:30 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, this is version 4. including Lee Schermerhon's good rework.
and automatic configuration at boot time.
hm, this adds rather a lot of code. Have we established that it's worth
it?
And it's complex - how do poor
16 matches
Mail list logo
