[procps] Re: top: NUMA node CPU utilization support
- From: Craig Small <csmall-procps@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:39:54 +1000
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:34:20PM -0500, Jim Warner wrote:
> On second thought, maybe we should drop my build-sys approach and create
> a new patch that's not so forgiving.
>
> So basically we keep --disable-numa but in its absence require both
> numa.h and libnuma.
I'd flip the logic and make numa off by default. Otherwise I'd have to
pull-in libnuma1 into procps dependencies which is not a good thing for
a base package to do. I would assume most people don't need numa
on by default and the principle of least-surprise is to not have it
enabled.
Practially for me its not an issue as I can just add --disable-numa
to my configure line. The question comes down to: would most users of
procps expect to have numa support in by default or not?
The next step is simple, if numa is enabled then the libraries and
headers are checked and error if not found. I've seen where libraries
not found just disables the feature but think that's incredibly bad
because behavour of the applications change depending on wether
sometihng exists or not at compile time.
--
Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5
Other related posts:
