On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave Hansen wrote: > Well, my point was that, if we have two, the numa_maps can be completely > derived in userspace from the information in memory_maps plus sysfs > alone. So, why increase the kernel's complexity with two > implementations that can do the exact same thing? Yes, it might make > the batch scheduler do one more pathname lookup, but that's not the > kernel's problem :) > > BTW, are you planning on using SPARSEMEM whenever NUMA is enabled in the > future?
I am not sure if we will be using SPARSEMEM or not. It would not be good to make the numa_maps patch depend on SPARSEMEM since that is an optional feature right now. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
