On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:59:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/08/2014 01:51 PM, Steven Noonan wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:16 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> <snark> > >> > >> Of course, it would also be preferable if Amazon (or anything else) didn't need Xen PV :( > > > > Well Amazon doesn't expose NUMA on PV, only on HVM guests. > > > > Yes, but Amazon is one of the main things keeping Xen PV alive as far as > I can tell, which means the support gets built in, and so on. Taking the snarkiness aside, the issue here is that even on guests without NUMA exposed the problem shows up. That is the 'mknuma' are still being called even if the guest topology is not NUMA! Which brings a question - why isn't the mknuma and its friends gatted by an jump_label machinery or such? Mel, any particular reasons why it couldn't be done this way? > > -hpa > > > -- > 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> -- 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>