* Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So shouldn't such a patch remove that code rather than panicing?
>
> I would be for remove, but apparently we have one or two users in IBM
> that run their x440s (32bit only) with CONFIG_NUMA. No distributions
> do so though and I would expect x440s to usually run distributions
> because they are quite expensive machines.
>
> My arguments for remove:
> - The code is very hackish - it was written before the proper ACPI
> infrastructure is in place - and NUMA on 32bit in general needs a lot
> of hacks because of the limited ZONE_NORMAL.
works fine here now. The whole NUMA code is still quite hackish in
general, (including most of arch/x86_64/*/*.c), so i'd not judge based
on that.
> - NUMA on 32bit is kind of broken by design.
well. 32bit itself is broken by design, if you consider RAM larger than
say 1GB.
> - It isn't used much.
it's an enabler of a feature-set that i couldnt test on these boxes
otherwise. Look at it like the highmem= boot option. Or consider it a
primitive form of NUMA emulation.
> - It breaks often
Martin says he's daily testing it in his grid.
> - It tends to not work on Opterons and hits the users who try it
> there.
maybe due to the zone alignment problem?
Ingo
-
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]
