>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:23:06 -0800, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> said: >> It seems logical to me that MCA data be close to the node/cpu >> using it, but workable if it is not. Tony> Since performance is not an issue here, and there isn't a Tony> functionality reason for allocating per-node, I'd vote for Tony> whatever is the cleanest code implementation. Part of the pit Tony> I've dug myself into is caused by the complexity of the Tony> contig/discontig code ... if we can make it simpler, perhaps I Tony> won't break it all again. I'm all for simplification, but with a better API, we could share code and still have node-local data (which does feel intuitively right). Can't we have a simple alloc_bootmem_for_cpu(cpu, size, align, goal) which would take care of the difference? (Yes, I know about alloc_bootmem_node(), but it wants a pgdat pointer, which I couldn't care less about in the non-NUMA case.) --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Jan 26 15:08:39 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:35 EST