Re: [PATCH 2/3] add dev_to_node()

[Lee Schermerhorn]

On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 10:16 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> > I wonder there are no code for creating NODE_DATA() for device-only-node.
> 
> On IA64 we remap nodes with no memory / cpus to the nearest node with 
> memory. I think that is sufficient.

I don't think this happens anymore.  Back in the ~2.6.5 days, when we
would configure our numa platforms with 100% of memory interleaved [in
hardware at  cache line granularity], the cpus would move to the
interleaved "pseudo-node" and the memoryless nodes would be removed.
numactl --hardware would show something like this:

# uname -r
2.6.5-7.244-default
# numactl --hardware
available: 1 nodes (0-0)
node 0 size: 65443 MB
node 0 free: 64506 MB

I started seeing different behavior about the time SPARSEMEM went in.
Now, with a 2.6.16 base kernel [same platform, hardware interleaved
memory], I see:

# uname -r# numactl --hardware
available: 5 nodes (0-4)
node 0 size: 0 MB
node 0 free: 0 MB
node 1 size: 0 MB
node 1 free: 0 MB
node 2 size: 0 MB
node 2 free: 0 MB
node 3 size: 0 MB
node 3 free: 0 MB
node 4 size: 65439 MB
node 4 free: 64492 MB
node distances:
node   0   1   2   3   4
  0:  10  17  17  17  14
  1:  17  10  17  17  14
  2:  17  17  10  17  14
  3:  17  17  17  10  14
  4:  14  14  14  14  10
2.6.16.21-0.8-default

[Aside:  The firmware/SLIT says that the interleaved memory is closer to
all nodes that other nodes' memory.  This has interesting implications
for the "overflow" zone lists...]

Lee

-
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/