Re: [PATCH] change CONFIG_NUMA description

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > From fd51b2d7d5df932767b89e00d0871a38a2c53e74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 02:27:19 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: update CONFIG_NUMA description
> >
> > Impact: clarify/update CONFIG_NUMA text
> >
> > CONFIG_NUMA description talk about a bit old thing.
> > So, following changes are better.
> >
> >  o CONFIG_NUMA is no longer EXPERIMENTAL
> >
> >  o Opteron is not the only processor of NUMA topology on x86_64 no longer,
> >   but also Intel Core7i has it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/Kconfig |   16 ++++++++++------
> >  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > index 350bee1..38ae04b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > @@ -951,22 +951,26 @@ config ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> >
> >  # Common NUMA Features
> >  config NUMA
> > -       bool "Numa Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> > +       bool "Numa Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support"
> >        depends on SMP
> >        depends on X86_64 || (X86_32 && HIGHMEM64G && (X86_NUMAQ || X86_BIGSMP || X86_SUMMIT && ACPI) && EXPERIMENTAL)
> 
> Why does this depend on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL still?

Good point, i've just removed that too. 32-bit NUMA used to have 
stability problems (nobody really tested it systematically), but we've 
fixed those bugs and can now remove the restrictions in v2.6.29.

	Ingo