On 9/8/05, Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:

"Martin J. Bligh" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

--On Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:27:54 -0700 Dave Hansen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 11:22 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

quoted

CONFIG_NUMA was meant to (and did at one point) support both NUMA and flat
machines. This is essential in order for the distros to support it - same
will go for sparsemem.

That's a different issue.  The current code works if you boot a NUMA=y
SPARSEMEM=y machine with a single node.  The current Kconfig options
also enforce that SPARSEMEM depends on NUMA on i386.

Magnus would like to enable SPARSEMEM=y while CONFIG_NUMA=n.  That
requires some Kconfig changes, as well as an extra memory present call.
I'm questioning why we need to do that when we could never do
DISCONTIG=y while NUMA=n on i386.

Ah, OK - makes more sense. However, some machines do have large holes
in e820 map setups - is not really critical, more of an efficiency
thing.

Confused.   Does all this mean that we want the patch, or not?

What about if I remove the Kconfig stuff and just keep the "fix" for
the non-NUMA version of setup_memory()?

/ magnus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>