On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:41:03 +0000 "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > hm, why. Obviously SRAT support will improve things, but is it > > actually unusable/unuseful with the command line configuration? > > Users will want to set these moveable zones along node boundaries > (the whole purpose is to be able to remove a node by making sure > the kernel won't allocate anything tricky in it, right?) So raw addresses > are usable ... but to get them right the user will have to go parse the > SRAT table manually to come up with the addresses. Any time you > make the user go off and do some tedious calculation that the computer > should have done for them is user-abuse. > Sure. But SRAT configuration is in progress and the boot option is better than nothing? Things I'm wondering: - is there *really* a case for retaining the boot option if/when SRAT support is available? - will the boot option be needed for other archictectures, presumably because they don't provide sufficient layout information to the kernel? -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>