[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQXFVnO43TUFOt_zSL=QGDFmERQLfku3WJHgOPGTxf+XUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:43:45 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
Don Morris <don.morris@...com>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!
[trim down CC list a bit]
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> On 02/28/2013 08:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > Yingai, Andrew,
>> > is this ok with you two?
>> >
>> > Linus
>>
>> FWIW, it makes sense to me iff it resolves the problems
>
>
> I prefer to reverting all 8 patches.
>
> Actually I have worked out one patch that could solve all problems, but it
> is too intrusive that I do not want to split it to small pieces to post
> it.
>
> Leaving the movablemem_map related changes in the upstream tree, will
> prevent me from continuing to make memblock to be used to allocate page
> table on local node ram for hot add.
>
> Will send reverting patch and putting page table on local node patch around
> 10pm after I get home.
Please check attached patches.
Plan A. revert all 8 patches:
revert_movablemem_map.patch
Plan B. fix movablemem_map:
kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch
fix_movablemem_map.patch is too risky, and need more test.
Konrad, Stefano:
Can you check kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch
on top of today's Linus tree to check if it breaks Xen?
Thanks
Yinghai
Download attachment "revert_movablemem_map.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (31559 bytes)
Download attachment "kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (3581 bytes)
Download attachment "fix_movablemem_map.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (17331 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists