Ping!
-- Ethan
Ethan Solomita wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>>
>>> This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
>>> "node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
>>>
>> I think it's very consistent
Ping!
-- Ethan
Ethan Solomita wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously nid or
node) in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
"node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
It's consistent to call
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
> This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
> "node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
> Both AMD and Intel x86_64 discovery code will
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
"node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
Both AMD and Intel x86_64 discovery code will determine a CPU's physical
node and use that node when calling numa_add_cpu() to associate that CPU
with the node, but numa_add_cpu()
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously nid or
node) in the presence of fake NUMA.
Both AMD and Intel x86_64 discovery code will determine a CPU's physical
node and use that node when calling numa_add_cpu() to associate that CPU
with the node, but numa_add_cpu() treats
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously nid or
node) in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
Both AMD and Intel x86_64 discovery code will determine
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously nid or
node) in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
It's consistent to call
8 matches
Mail list logo