Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265543AbUFONwJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:52:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265544AbUFONwJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:52:09 -0400 Received: from mtvcafw.SGI.COM ([192.48.171.6]:42074 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265543AbUFONwE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:52:04 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: NUMA API observations Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:50:41 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Anton Blanchard , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@projects.sourceforge.net References: <20040614153638.GB25389@krispykreme> <20040614214003.GE25389@krispykreme> <20040614234958.GC90963@colin2.muc.de> In-Reply-To: <20040614234958.GC90963@colin2.muc.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406150950.41129.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1500 Lines: 33 > > > > My kernel is compiled with NR_CPUS=128, the setaffinity syscall must > > > > be called with a bitmap at least as big as the kernels cpumask_t. I > > > > will submit a patch for this shortly. > > > > > > Umm, what a misfeature. We size the buffer up to the biggest > > > running CPU. That should be enough. > > > > > > IMHO that's just a kernel bug. How should a user space > > > application sanely discover the cpumask_t size needed by the kernel? > > > Whoever designed that was on crack. > > > > glibc now uses a select style interface. Unfortunately the interface has > > changed about three times by now. > > I have no plans to track the glibc interface of the week for this > and numactl must run with older glibc anyways, that is why I always > used an own stub to this. I am not sure they even solved the problem > completely. With the upcomming numactl version it should work. > > What I wonder is why IA64 worked though. We tested on it previously, > but somehow didn't run into this. The regression test suite > needs to check this better. Yeah, I tested it with a kernel compiled for 512p, and didn't have any problems. But that was awhile ago--I may have fixed the code and lost the diff when I sent you the other patches... Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/