[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1355364222.9244.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:03:42 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add node physical memory range to sysfs
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:48 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 05:18 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 16:17 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> Seems like the better way to do this would be to expose the DIMMs
> >> themselves in some way, and then map _those_ back to a node.
> >
> > Good point, and from a DIMM perspective, I agree, and will look into
> > this. However, IMHO, having the range of physical addresses for every
> > node still provides valuable information, from a NUMA point of view. For
> > example, dealing with node related e820 mappings.
>
> But if we went and did it per-DIMM (showing which physical addresses and
> NUMA nodes a DIMM maps to), wouldn't that be redundant with this
> proposed interface?
>
If DIMMs overlap between nodes, then we wouldn't have an exact range for
a node in question. Having both approaches would complement each other.
> How do you plan to use this in practice, btw?
>
It started because I needed to recognize the address of a node to remove
it from the e820 mappings and have the system "ignore" the node's
memory.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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