Re: [patch -mm 3/5] x86_64: fixed-size remaining fake nodes

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: David Rientjes
Date: Monday, January 29, 2007 - 6:19 pm

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, David Rientjes wrote:


I agree it's not a good idea to prevent the remaining RAM from being 
allocated to an additional node.  It was helpful in testing and the 
gathering of benchmarks for the purpose of memory management, but not for 
real-world cases.  It's been removed.

		David
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[patch -mm 1/5] x86_64: configurable fake numa node sizes, David Rientjes, (Thu Jan 25, 2:37 pm)
[patch -mm 2/5] x86_64: split remaining fake nodes equally, David Rientjes, (Thu Jan 25, 2:37 pm)
[patch -mm 3/5] x86_64: fixed-size remaining fake nodes, David Rientjes, (Thu Jan 25, 2:37 pm)
[patch -mm 4/5] x86_64: fake numa function annotations, David Rientjes, (Thu Jan 25, 2:37 pm)
Re: [patch -mm 3/5] x86_64: fixed-size remaining fake nodes, David Rientjes, (Mon Jan 29, 11:38 am)
Re: [patch -mm 3/5] x86_64: fixed-size remaining fake nodes, David Rientjes, (Mon Jan 29, 6:19 pm)