linux-kernel - Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:25:16 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Don Morris <don.morris@...com>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 02:54 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> Those patches are tangled together.
>
>
> No, they are not.
>
> The following commits supports "movablemem_map=nn[KMG]@ss[KMG]".
>
> commit fb06bc8e5f42f38c011de0e59481f464a82380f6
>     page_alloc: bootmem limit with movablecore_map
> commit 42f47e27e761fee07da69e04612ec7dd0d490edd
>     page_alloc: make movablemem_map have higher priority
> commit 6981ec31146cf19454c55c130625f6cee89aab95
>     page_alloc: introduce zone_movable_limit[] to keep movable limit for nodes
> commit 34b71f1e04fcba578e719e675b4882eeeb2a1f6f
>     page_alloc: add movable_memmap kernel parameter
> commit 4d59a75125d5a4717e57e9fc62c64b3d346e603e
>     x86: get pg_data_t's memory from other node
>
> And the following supports "movablemem_map=srat".
>
> commit f7210e6c4ac795694106c1c5307134d3fc233e88
>     mm/memblock.c: use CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP to protect movablecore_map in memblock_overlaps_region().
> commit 01a178a94e8eaec351b29ee49fbb3d1c124cb7fb
>     acpi, memory-hotplug: support getting hotplug info from SRAT
> commit 27168d38fa209073219abedbe6a9de7ba9acbfad
>     acpi, memory-hotplug: extend movablemem_map ranges to the end of node
> commit e8d1955258091e4c92d5a975ebd7fd8a98f5d30f
>     acpi, memory-hotplug: parse SRAT before memblock is ready

those four can be reverted cleanly?

>
>>
>> Also it looks funny to ask user to specify mem range in boot command
>> line to enable mem hotplug.
>
>
> Well, I think sometimes users don't like the SRAT memory style, and want to
> increase or reduce hot-pluggable memory by themselves. And also, it is
> useful
> for debuging firmware bugs.
>
> I agree that "movablemem_map=srat" functionality need more work to improve.
> Can we not revert it, and improve it during 3.9rc ? I think during rc time,
> at least we can fix the problems brought by early_parse_srat().

looks like acpi_override can not be fixed.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/