On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 17:22 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Dave Hansen wrote: > I know specifically of pieces of x86 hardware that set the information > > in the BIOS to '21' *specifically* so they'll get the zone_reclaim_mode > > behavior which that implies. > > That doesn't seem like an argument against this patch, it's an improper > configuration unless the remote memory access has a latency of 2.1x that > of a local access between those two nodes. If that's the case, then it's > accurately following the ACPI spec and the VM has made its policy decision > to enable zone_reclaim_mode as a result. Heh, if the kernel broke on every system that didn't follow _some_ spec, it wouldn't boot in very many places. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're a BIOS developer, you start thwacking at the kernel with munged ACPI tables instead of boot options. Folks do this in the real world, and I think if we can't put their names and addresses next to the code that works around this, we might as well put the DMI strings of their hardware. :) -- Dave -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>