>> > I have included a very rough patch to do ht-numa topology. I requires to
>> > manually define CONFIG_NUMA and CONFIG_NUMA_SCHED. It also uses
>> > num_cpunodes instead of numnodes and defines MAX_NUM_NODES to 8 if
>> > CONFIG_NUMA is defined.
>> Whilst it's fine for benchmarking, I think this kind of overlap is a
>> very bad idea long-term - the confusion introduced is just asking for
>> trouble. And think what's going to happen when you mix HT and NUMA.
>> If we're going to use this for HT, it needs abstracting out.
> I have no issues with using HT specific bits instead of NUMA. Design wise it
> would be nice if it could all be happy together, but if not, then so be it.
That's not what I meant - we can share the code, we just need to abstract
it out so you don't have to turn on CONFIG_NUMA. That was the point of
the pooling patch I posted at the weekend. Anyway, let's decide on the
best approach first, we can clean up the code for merging later.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:24 EST