Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:01:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:01:00 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:31666 "EHLO e31.bld.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:00:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:57:47 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Alan Cox , landley@trommello.org cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Whining about NUMA. :) [Was whining about 2.5...] Message-ID: <1811287155.1002538667@mbligh.des.sequent.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> So would a workable (if naieve) attempt to use Andrea's >> memory-zones-grouped-into-classes approach on NUMA just involve making a >> class/zone list for each node? (Okay, you've got to identify nodes, and >> group together processors, bridges, DMAable devices, etc, but it seems like >> that has to be done anyway, class/zone or not.) How does what people want to >> do for NUMA improve on that? > > I fear it becomes an N! problem. > > I'd like to hear what Andrea has planned since without docs its hard to > speculate on how the 2.4.10 vm works anyway Can you describe why it's N! ? Are you talking about the worst possible case, or a two level local / non-local problem? Thanks, Martin. - 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/