On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Shaohui Zheng wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:10:50PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > I don't understand why that's a requirement, NUMA emulation is a seperate > > feature. Although both are primarily used to test and instrument other VM > > and kernel code, NUMA emulation is restricted to only being used at boot > > to fake nodes on smaller machines and can be used to test things like the > > slab allocator. The NUMA hotplug emulator that you're developing here is > > primarily used to test the hotplug callbacks; for that use-case, it seems > > particularly helpful if nodes can be hotplugged of various sizes and node > > ids rather than having static characteristics that cannot be changed with > > a reboot. > > > I agree with you. the early emulator do the same thing as you said, but there > is already NUMA emulation to create fake node, our emulator also creates > fake nodes. We worried about that we will suffer the critiques from the community, > so we drop the original degsin. > > I did not know whether other engineers have the same attitude with you. I think > that I can publish both codes, and let the community to decide which one is prefered. > > In my personal opinion, both methods are acceptable for me. > The way that I've proposed it in my email to Dave was different: we use the memory hotplug interface to add and online the memory only after an interface has been added that will change the node mappings to first_unset_node(node_online_map). The memory hotplug interface may create a new pgdat, so this is the node creation mechanism that should be used as opposed to those in NUMA emulation. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>