On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:40:36PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Jack Steiner wrote:
>
> > A lot of the core infrastructure is currently missing that is required
> > to describe IO nodes as regular nodes, but in principle, I don't
> > see anything wrong with nodes w/o memory.
>
> Every processor has a local node on which it runs. The kernel places
> memory used by the processor on the local node. Even if we allow
> nodes without memory: We still need to associate a "local" node to the
> processor. If that is across some NUMA interlink then it is going to be
> slower but it will work.
True.
>
> AFAIK It seems to be better to explicitly associate a memory node with a
> processor during bootup in arch code.
>
> Various kernel optimizations rely on local memory. Would we create
> a special case here of a pglist_data structure without a zones structure?
>
> It seems that the contents of pglist_data are targeted to a memory node.
> If we do not have a pglist_data structure then the node would not exist
> for the kernel.
>
> What would the benefit or difference be of having nodes without memory?
I doubt that there is a demand for systems with memoryless nodes. However, if the
DIMM(s) on a node fails, I think the system may perform better
with the cpus on the node enabled than it will if they have to be
disabled.
-- jack
-
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]
