Re: assert/crash in __rmqueue() when enabling CONFIG_NUMA

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tuesday 02 May 2006 22:13, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> nah. And the fact that i could boot this on a non-NUMA box already 
> unearthed a weakness in the buddy allocator. (it should have much 
> clearer asserts about mis-sized zones - it's not the first time we had 
> them and they are hard to debug) 

GIGO.

> So consider this a debugging feature.  
> It also found other bugs, so even if nobody but me uses it, it's useful.

It's an awful lot of ugly code for a debugging feature.

Also I never considered i386 NUMA to be particularly interesting 
because it doesn't work for the kernel lowmem which is always on node 0.
So no matter what you try you have a nasty hotspot on node 0's memory.

-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]
  Powered by Linux