To: k-suganuma@mvj.biglobe.ne.jp (Kimio Suganuma) cc: Paul McKenney/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS, andi@suse.de, andrea@suse.de, aono@ed2.com1.fc.nec.co.jp, beckman@turbolabs.com, bjorn_helgaas@hp.com, Hubertus Franke/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Jerry.Harrow@Compaq.com, jwright@engr.sgi.com, kanoj@engr.sgi.com, kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, norton@mclinux.com, suganuma@hpc.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp, sunil.saxena@intel.com, tbutler@hi.com, woodman@missioncriticallinux.com, mikek@sequent.com, Kenneth Rozendal/Austin/IBM@IBMUS Date: 03/29/01 09:41 PM From: Kanoj Sarcar Subject: Re: NUMA-on-Linux roadmap, version 2 > Hi all, > > I feel this topology descriptor might be also useful > for other purposes. For example, for hot-plugging, > dynamic patitioning, MCA handling and so on. If you can provide some logic, let us all know, it is always helpful to know a certain feature can be used for multiple things while arguing that it should be done. > Do you think this /proc information should be generic > or NUMA specific? At least for /proc/nodeinfo, and possibly even for a tree/graph under /proc, I think it would be done even for non-NUMA. For example, /proc/nodeinfo on regular SMP would just list most of the information that /proc/meminfo provides, as well as all the cpus in the system. Of course, Linus (or someone else) might object to exporting the same information multiple ways. Kanoj