[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50B41041.6030902@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:58:41 +0800
From: Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@...wei.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
wujianguo <wujianguo106@...il.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<rob@...dley.net>, <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
<laijs@...fujitsu.com>, <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
<linfeng@...fujitsu.com>, <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
<yinghai@...nel.org>, <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
<minchan.kim@...il.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
<rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<qiuxishi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] page_alloc: Bootmem limit with movablecore_map
On 2012/11/26 23:48, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 05:15 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wu,
>>
>> That is really a problem. And, before numa memory got initialized,
>> memblock subsystem would be used to allocate memory. I didn't find any
>> approach that could fully address it when I making the patches. There
>> always be risk that memblock allocates memory on ZONE_MOVABLE. I think
>> we can only do our best to prevent it from happening.
>>
>> Your patch is very helpful. And after a shot look at the code, it seems
>> that acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() is an architecture dependent
>> function. Could we do this somewhere which is not depending on the
>> architecture ?
>>
>
> The movable memory should be classified as a non-RAM type in memblock,
> that way we will not allocate from it early on.
>
> -hpa
yep, we can put movable memory in reserved.regions in memblock.
>
>
> .
>
--
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