Re: [PATCH v3] mm: make expand_downwards symmetrical toexpand_upwards

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> > That part makes me think the best option is to make parisc do
> > CONFIG_NUMA as well regardless of the historical intent was.
> 
> But it's not just parisc.  It's six other architectures as well, some
> of which aren't even SMP.  Does !SMP && NUMA make any kind of sense?
> 

It does as long as DISCONTIGMEM is hijacking NUMA abstractions throughout 
the code; for example, look at the .config that James is probably using 
for testing here:

	CONFIG_PA8X00=y
	CONFIG_64BIT=y
	CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM=y
	CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES=y
	CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=3

and CONFIG_NUMA is not enabled.  So we want CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT of 3 
(because MAX_PHYSMEM_RANGES is 8) and CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES is 
enabled because of DISCONTIGMEM:

	#
	# Both the NUMA code and DISCONTIGMEM use arrays of pg_data_t's
	# to represent different areas of memory.  This variable allows
	# those dependencies to exist individually.
	#
	config NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
		def_bool y
		depends on DISCONTIGMEM || NUMA

when in reality we should do away with CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES and just 
force DISCONTIGMEM to enable CONFIG_NUMA at least for -stable and as a 
quick fix for James.

In the long run, we'll probably want to define a lighterweight CONFIG_NUMA 
as a layer that CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM can use for memory range abstractions 
and then CONFIG_NUMA is built on top of it to define proximity between 
those ranges.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/