On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 01:40:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:07:43 +0100 > Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 09:13:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 19:26 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > This would break the numactl testsuite. > > > > > > > How so? The userspace output will still contain the field, we'll simply > > > always print 0. > > > > Then the interleave test in the test suite will fail > > > > > > > > But if you want I can provide a patch for numactl. > > > > Disable the test? That would be bad too. > > > > My googling and codesearch attempts didn't reveal any users of > NUMA_INTERLEAVE_HIT. But then, it didn't find the usage in the numactl Obviously you have to search for "interleave_hit", the uppercase variant is just an kernel internal define. > suite either. test/regress > > It would be good if we could find some way to remove this code (and any > other code!). If that causes a bit of pain for users of the test suite > (presumably a small number of technically able people) then that seems > acceptable to me - we end up with a better kernel. The problem is that then there will be nothing left that actually tests interleaving. The numactl has caught kernel regressions in the past. I don't think disabling useful regression tests is a good idea. In contrary the kernel needs far more of them, not less. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>