On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:04:48AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > 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? Hmm,. I thought we disabled all that when there was only the 1 node. All this should be driven from task_tick_numa() which only gets called when numabalancing_enabled, and that _should_ be false when nr_nodes == 1. -- 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>