[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090926172802.GS30185@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:15:23 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [origin tree build failure] Re: [PULL] Please pull hwpoison
code for 2.6.32
We're definitely going to continue to have this problem until we decide we have hit the pain threshold either support external *zone* numbers or permit a 64-bit pageflags.
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 10:20:05AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> It doesn't help adjusting NODES_SHIFT - we're already operating in the stressed condition for which NODES_WIDTH == 0 (external node number.)
>>
>> As such, NUMA vs !NUMA is a red herring - it's really about SPARSEMEM.
>>
>> (Disclaimer: I have no access to the code at the moment and I only have my cell phone email, but I had to deal with this for another issue recently enough.)
>
>You're right. In theory we could just set the sparsemem block really
>large on NUMAQ because it doesn't support memory hotadd anyways, so needing
>less bits. But Linus' simple patch is also a solution.
>
>Of course the issue might come up again when someone else needs another
>page flags bit.
>
>-Andi
>
>--
>ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists