[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006291456550.27163@www.lameter.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:58:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0
offline
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot. However in practice,
> there are systems which have node 0 as memoryless and cpuless.
Maybe add something to explain why you are not simply mapping the
existing memory to NUMA node 0 which is after all just a numbering scheme
used by the kernel and can be used arbitrarily?
This could be seen more as a bug in the arch code during the setup of NUMA
nodes. The two nodes are created by the firmwware / bootstrap code after
all. Just do not do it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists