[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200330080456.GJ9942@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:04:56 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Hoan Tran <Hoan@...amperecomputing.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lho@...erecomputing.com, mmorana@...erecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by
default for NUMA
On 03/30/20 at 09:44am, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 29-03-20 08:19:24, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 03/28/20 at 11:31am, Hoan Tran wrote:
> > > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> > > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
> > >
> > > For example, with layout below
> > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
> >
> > Sorry, I read this example several times, but still don't get what it
> > means. Can it be given with real hex number address as an exmaple? I
> > mean just using the memory layout you have seen from some systems. The
> > change looks interesting though.
>
> Does this make it more clear?
> physical address range and its node associaion
> [0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]
I later read it again, have got what Hoan is trying to say, thanks.
I think the change in this patchset makes sense, still have some concern
though, let me add comment in other thread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists