On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:03:46 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:00, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:49:41 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This panic(hang) was found by a numa test-set on a system with 3 nodes, > > > > where > > > > node(2) was memory-less-node. > > > > > > I still think it's the wrong fix -- just get rid of the memory less node. > > > > "Let's break it even more"? > > I still don't get what you believe what would be broken then. A node with no memory is physical reality. The kernel should do its best handle and report it accurately. Pretending that the CPUs on that node are local to a different node's memory (as I understand your proposal) goes against that. > > > I expect you'll likely run into more problems with that setup anyways. > > > > What happens if he doesn't run into more problems? > > Then he's lucky. I ran into problems at least when I still had the empty > nodes some time ago on x86-64. Christoph said SN2 is doing the same. > > iirc slab blew up at least, but that might be fixed by now. But it's a > little risky > because there is more code now that is node aware. > Well... I'd suggest that we try to struggle on, get it working. Is there a downside to doing that? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
