On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > > Am Fr, 29.05.2009, 17:01, schrieb Andi Kleen: > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:54:06AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 May 2009, Max Laier wrote: > >> > >> > Same result. "numa_hit" in node 7 increases, while "nr_free_pages" > >> stays > >> > the same. Anything else you'd want me to watch out for? > >> > >> That looks like a bug in fake numa. > > > > I also got some reports of fake numa being a bit broken recently. > > That might have been me too - I sent you a private mail earlier this week. No that was from someone else. Also I don't have an email from you in my mailbox, so I didn't see it. > I guess the question is, what is special about my allocation in KVM as Define "in KVM"? Inside the guest? > opposed to the allocation in the test module (that works as expected). I thought you complained that the test module didn't increase the numastat counters as expected? > The userland test tools from the numactl package also work as expected in > membind mode. > > Also, I have been reading the fake numa setup back and forth and I really To be honest I don't understand it anymore either since it got so much new stuff a couple of years back. All I can say it worked when I wrote it originally and set up the nodes in exactly the same way as the native NUMA setup on x86-64. > I'll take another look at the fake numa setup later today. Any chance > somebody could give the KVM thing a try on real numa hardware? Though > there are probably not that many systems that have real numa and kvm > support ... dual socket Gainestown setup anyone? I don't understand. There are lots of KVM capable NUMA systems. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
