[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1102191944530.32280@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:03:41 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, numa: Do not adjust start/end for
early_node_mem()
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
> @@ -164,14 +164,9 @@ static void * __init early_node_mem(int
> unsigned long mem;
>
> /*
> - * put it on high as possible
> - * something will go with NODE_DATA
> + * memblock find will follow top-down, so don't need to adjust
> + * start anymore
> */
> - if (start < (MAX_DMA_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT))
> - start = MAX_DMA_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT;
> - if (start < (MAX_DMA32_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT) &&
> - end > (MAX_DMA32_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT))
> - start = MAX_DMA32_PFN<<PAGE_SHIFT;
> mem = memblock_x86_find_in_range_node(nodeid, start, end, size, align);
> if (mem != MEMBLOCK_ERROR)
> return __va(mem);
>
The old code guarantees that the range is from a single zone, and even
though memblock may be top -> down, it seems like there would be
configurations where this would still be an issue (perhaps simulating it
with numa=fake for testing?) if it crosses the boundary.
--
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