On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:03:46 +0100 Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100 Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes, where
> > > > node(2) was memory-less-node.
> > >
> > > I still think it's the wrong fix -- just get rid of the memory less node.
> >
> > "Let's break it even more"?
>
> I still don't get what you believe what would be broken then.
A node with no memory is physical reality. The kernel should do its best
handle and report it accurately. Pretending that the CPUs on that node are
local to a different node's memory (as I understand your proposal) goes
against that.
> > > I expect you'll likely run into more problems with that setup anyways.
> >
> > What happens if he doesn't run into more problems?
>
> Then he's lucky. I ran into problems at least when I still had the empty
> nodes some time ago on x86-64. Christoph said SN2 is doing the same.
>
> iirc slab blew up at least, but that might be fixed by now. But it's a little risky
> because there is more code now that is node aware.
>
Well... I'd suggest that we try to struggle on, get it working. Is there
a downside to doing that?
-
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]
