Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
seemed to work fine there.
There are a couple of other changes in behaviour that your patch
introduces, and I'd like to understand them
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
seemed to work fine there.
There are a couple of other changes in
On 1/27/08, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-27 22:55:43]:
Balbir Singh writes:
Here's a better and more complete fix for the problem. Could you
please see if it works for you? I tested it on a real NUMA box and it
seemed to work fine
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
This fixes it, although I'm a little worried about some of the
removals/movings of node_set_online() in the patch.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index 1666e7d..dcedc26 100644
---
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:55:03]:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
Comments are as always
* Michael Ellerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-18 16:34:53]:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
Tested with
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
Comments are as always welcome!
Here's some :)
diff -puN
Balbir Singh wrote:
Changelog
1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
Tested with additional parameters from Olof
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 04:07:14AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks good to me. Sure, it could be fleshed out to something more
generic and in common code, but this is small and simple and doesn't
bloat the kernel much as it stands, and it has value
On Sat 2007-12-08 09:52:06, Balbir Singh wrote:
David Rientjes wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
To be able to test the memory controller under NUMA, I use fake NUMA
nodes. x86-64 has a similar feature, the code I have here is the
simplest I could come up with for
Pavel Machek wrote:
On Sat 2007-12-08 09:52:06, Balbir Singh wrote:
David Rientjes wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
To be able to test the memory controller under NUMA, I use fake NUMA
nodes. x86-64 has a similar feature, the code I have here is the
simplest I could come up
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
You're going to want to distribute the cpu's based on how they match up
physically with the actual platform that you're running on. x86_64 does
Could you explain this better, how does it match up CPU's with fake NUMA
memory? Is there some
David Rientjes wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Yes, they all appear on node 0. We could have tweaks to distribute CPU's
as well.
You're going to want to distribute the cpu's based on how they match up
physically with the actual platform that you're running on. x86_64
David Rientjes wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
To be able to test the memory controller under NUMA, I use fake NUMA
nodes. x86-64 has a similar feature, the code I have here is the
simplest I could come up with for PowerPC.
Magnus Damm had patches from over a year ago
Nathan Lynch wrote:
Hi Balbir-
Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
numa=fake=node range
node range is of the format range1,range2,...rangeN
Each of the rangeX
On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 07 December 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
+ if (strstr(p, fake=))
+ cmdline = p + 5;/* 5 is faster than strlen(fake=) */
Really? My gcc is smart enough to
On Friday 07 December 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
+ if (strstr(p, fake=))
+ cmdline = p + 5;/* 5 is faster than strlen(fake=) */
Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the
On Dec 7, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not saying it's a stupid
idea,
just wondering what the reason for doing it
Balbir Singh wrote:
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
+ if (strstr(p, fake=))
+ cmdline = p + 5;/* 5 is faster than strlen(fake=) */
Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen(fake=)' by 5, even
without -O.
Thanks for
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not saying it's a stupid idea,
just wondering what the reason for doing it is).
diff -puN arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c~ppc-fake-numa-easy
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Yes, they all appear on node 0. We could have tweaks to distribute CPU's
as well.
You're going to want to distribute the cpu's based on how they match up
physically with the actual platform that you're running on. x86_64 does
this already and it
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 07 December 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
numa=fake=node range
node range is of the format range1,range2,...rangeN
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
+if (strstr(p, fake=))
+cmdline = p + 5;/* 5 is faster than strlen(fake=) */
Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen(fake=)' by 5, even
without -O.
Thanks for pointing that out, but I
Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not saying it's a stupid idea,
just wondering what the reason for doing it is).
In my case, I use it to test parts of my
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
To be able to test the memory controller under NUMA, I use fake NUMA
nodes. x86-64 has a similar feature, the code I have here is the
simplest I could come up with for PowerPC.
Magnus Damm had patches from over a year ago that, I believe, made much of
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not saying it's a stupid idea,
just wondering what the
On Friday 07 December 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Here's a dumb simple implementation of fake NUMA nodes for PowerPC. Fake
NUMA nodes can be specified using the following command line option
numa=fake=node range
node range is of the format range1,range2,...rangeN
Excellent idea! I'd love to
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Olof Johansson wrote:
Comments are as always welcome!
Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not saying it's a stupid idea,
just wondering what the reason for doing it is).
Fake NUMA has always been useful for testing NUMA code without having to
have a wide range
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
+ if (strstr(p, fake=))
+ cmdline = p + 5;/* 5 is faster than strlen(fake=) */
Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen(fake=)' by 5, even
without -O.
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony
34 matches
Mail list logo
