[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a01350d-1fde-f8cd-ecac-471b1a4697b3@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:36:22 -0700
From: Hoan Tran <hoan@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...amperecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Kconfig: Enable NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES config for
NUMA
Hi Catalin,
On 3/11/20 4:27 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:01:19PM -0800, Hoan Tran wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> On 2/6/20 2:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:55:14AM -0800, Hoan Tran wrote:
>>>> Some NUMA nodes have memory ranges that span other nodes.
>>>> Even though a pfn is valid and between a node's start and end pfns,
>>>> it may not reside on that node.
>>>>
>>>> This patch enables NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES config for NUMA to support
>>>> this type of NUMA layout.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hoan Tran <Hoan@...amperecomputing.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 7 +++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>> index e688dfa..939d28f 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -959,6 +959,13 @@ config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
>>>> config HOLES_IN_ZONE
>>>> def_bool y
>>>> +# Some NUMA nodes have memory ranges that span other nodes.
>>>> +# Even though a pfn is valid and between a node's start and end pfns,
>>>> +# it may not reside on that node.
>>>> +config NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
>>>> + def_bool y
>>>> + depends on ACPI_NUMA
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I thought we agreed to do this in the core code?
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1562887528-5896-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com
>>
>> Yes, but it looks like Thomas didn't agree to apply this patch into
>> x86.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.DEB.2.21.1907152042110.1767@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/
>
> Was it a clear statement that such change will not make it to x86 or a
> request for improving the patch or the description? I'd suggest you
> update the x86 patch comment to include the rationale as per your reply
> to Thomas and post a new version of the generic series. If Thomas (or
> the mm folk) reject it again, we'll revisit the arm64-specific thread.
Yes, I have just sent out a new patch for mm core.
Regards
Hoan
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists