1 |
On 9/23/21 4:39 AM, Miles Malone wrote: |
2 |
> You'd need NUMA if you had a NUMA machine. In current context, that |
3 |
> would be either a) a dual socket system, b) an amd threadripper, or |
4 |
> c) some of the really high core xeons. If your motherboard doesnt |
5 |
> have certain memory banks allocated to certain processors or cores, |
6 |
> you're probably not running a NUMA machine. |
7 |
|
8 |
Will a kernel without NUMA support boot and run on a system that has a |
9 |
NUMA architecture? |
10 |
|
11 |
If it will boot and run, does it simply do so in a sub-optimal way? |
12 |
|
13 |
Flipping the coin on the other side, is there any negative effect (other |
14 |
than kernel size / lines of code / attack surface) for having NUMA |
15 |
support enabled on a non-NUMA system? |
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
-- |
20 |
Grant. . . . |
21 |
unix || die |