On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 03:43:50PM +0000, Bruno Faccini wrote: > > On 25/09/2024 11:32, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:27:52PM +0000, Bruno Faccini wrote: > > > On 24/09/2024 12:43, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > > I don't think that fake=N allocation method is intended to get fake nodes > > > with equal size, but to get this exact number of nodes. This is why I > > > think we should use a per-phys node size for the fake nodes it will host. > > > > IMO your change adds to much complexity for a feature that by definition > > should be used only for debugging. > > Well it is only executed once during boot, and as you said for debugging, > so I believe when the boot speed is not a requirement. And my testing on > our fat Numa nodes did not show a real difference. I meant code complexity, not the execution complexity. > > Also, there is a variation numa=fake=<N>U of numa=fake parameter that > > divides each node into N emulated nodes. > > Right, but both methods should work as expected, is'nt it ? > And one allocates emulated nodes interleaved on physical nodes when the > second is doing allocation serially. I think we can just bail out with an error if we fail to create the requested emulated nodes. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
