[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE8792F.8070200@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:02:39 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> MAX_LOCAL_APIC was definitely an arbitrary choice here and has very little
>> relevance. scnlistprintf will protect against overflow, but we still need
>> to decide upon a constant that will emit the most information possible
>> while not overly polluting the printk and saving on bss, as you mentioned.
>> I suspect we could agree on a value as little as 128 and it would work for
>> the overwhelming majority (all?) of users.
>
> For now at least seems reasonable to limit to 128 or so yes (and go
> back to the stack). if we ever have sparse apic ids for nodes
> then that might change; but in this case could still just do
> a acpidump or teach the printer to be more clever and support
> strides.
>
> It would be just good to have some indication in the output
> if there was a overflow.
>
> -Andi
>
I don't understand the importance of this when the memory is given back
after the system starts up anyway...?
Thanks,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists