Hi! On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro >> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I'm worry about this patch. A lot of mm code assume !NUMA systems >> > only have node 0. Not only SLUB. >> >> So is that a valid assumption or not? Christoph seems to think it is >> and James seems to think it's not. Which way should we aim to fix it? >> Would be nice if other people chimed in as we already know what James >> and Christoph think. On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm sorry. I don't know it really. The fact was gone into historical myst. ;-) > > Now, CONFIG_NUMA has mainly five meanings. > > 1) system may has !0 node id. > 2) compile mm/mempolicy.c (ie enable mempolicy APIs) > 3) Allocator (kmalloc, vmalloc, alloc_page, et al) awake NUMA topology. > 4) enable zone-reclaim feature > 5) scheduler makes per-node load balancing scheduler domain > > Anyway, we have to fix this issue. I'm digging which fixing way has least risk. > > > btw, x86 don't have an issue. Probably it's a reason why this issue was neglected > long time. > > arch/x86/Kconfig > ------------------------------------- > config ARCH_DISCONTIGMEM_ENABLE > def_bool y > depends on NUMA && X86_32 That part makes me think the best option is to make parisc do CONFIG_NUMA as well regardless of the historical intent was. Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html