On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:50:55 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not. > > > > If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be > > > > invalid. > > > > This patch adds a check whether a node has memory or not. > > > > > > IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code > > > should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node > > > instead. > > > > umm, why? > > > > A node which has CPUs and no memory is obviously physically possible and > > isn't a completely insane thing for a user to do. I'd have thought that > > the kernel should be able to cleanly and clearly handle it, > > It doesn't. Fix it? > > and to > > accurately present the machine's topology to the user without us having to > > go adding falsehoods like this? > > a node is a piece of memory. Without memory it doesn't make sense. Who said? I can pick up a piece of circuitry which has four CPUs and no RAM, wave it about then stick it in a computer. The kernel is just wrong, surely? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
