On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/