On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> > > If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
> > > invalid.
> > > This patch adds a check whether a node has memory or not.
> >
> > IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
> > should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node instead.
>
> umm, why?
>
> A node which has CPUs and no memory is obviously physically possible and
> isn't a completely insane thing for a user to do. I'd have thought that
> the kernel should be able to cleanly and clearly handle it,
It doesn't.
> and to
> accurately present the machine's topology to the user without us having to
> go adding falsehoods like this?
a node is a piece of memory. Without memory it doesn't make sense.
-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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
