[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUQaB2RAPyNjW8vF1uEigCEaxVFH1PBs=xgYNRRCpZPuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:42:57 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH part2 v2 0/8] Arrange hotpluggable memory as ZONE_MOVABLE
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
...
>> 2. also we should avoid adding "movable_nodes" command line.
...
>> 6. in the long run, We should rework our NUMA booting:
>> a. boot system with boot numa nodes early only.
>> b. in later init stage or user space, init other nodes
>> RAM/CPU/PCI...in parallel.
>> that will reduce boot time for 8 sockets/32 sockets dramatically.
>>
>> We will need to parse srat table early so could avoid init memory for
>> non-boot nodes.
>>
>
> I really like the long-term plan (and, I might want to add, the above
> writeup.)
>
> However, I don't understand how we can avoid #2, given that it is
> fundamentally a sysadmin-driven tradeoff between performance and
> reliability.
If we make all numa systems support nodes hot-remove logically.
like we boot system with node0, and hot add other nodes one by one,
we should hot remove them later.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists