[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tx1w78hi.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:26:41 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Replace _PAGE_NUMA with PAGE_NONE protections
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> writes:
> On 11/18/2014 10:42 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> 1. I'm assuming this is a KVM setup but can you confirm?
>
> Yes.
>
>> 2. Are you using numa=fake=N?
>
> Yes. numa=fake=24, which is probably way more nodes on any physical machine
> than the new code was tested on?
>
>> 3. If you are using fake NUMA, what happens if you boot without it as
>> that should make the patches a no-op?
>
> Nope, still seeing it without fake numa.
>
>> 4. Similarly, does the kernel boot properly without without patches?
>
> Yes, the kernel works fine without the patches both with and without fake
> numa.
Hmm that is interesting. I am not sure how writeback_fid can be
related. We use writeback fid to enable client side caching with 9p
(cache=loose). We use this fid to write back dirty pages later. Can you
share the qemu command line used, 9p mount options and the test details ?
-aneesh
--
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