On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:24 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > Hi Mel, > > > > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:18 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Rohit Seth wrote: > >> > >>> This patch provides a IO hole size in a given address range. > >>> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch reintroduces a function that doubles up what > >> absent_pages_in_range(start_pfn, end_pfn). I recognise you do this because > >> you are interested in hole sizes before add_active_range() is called. > > > > Right. > > > >> > >> However, what is not clear is why these patches are so specific to x86_64. > >> > > > > Specifically in the fake numa case, we want to make sure that we don't > > carve fake nodes that only have IO holes in it. Unlike the real NUMA > > case, here we don't have SRAT etc. to know the memory layout beforehand. > > > > > >> It looks possible to do the work of functions like split_nodes_equal() in > >> an architecture-independent manner using early_node_map rather than > >> dealing with the arch-specific nodes array. That would open the > >> possibility of providing fake nodes on more than one architecture in the > >> future. > > > > The functions like splti_nodes_equal etc. can be abstracted out to arch > > independent part. I think the only API it needs from arch dependent > > part is to find out how much real RAM is present in range without have > > to first do add_active_range. > > > > That is a problem because the ranges must be registered with > add_active_range() to work out how much real RAM is present. >
Right. And that is why I need e820_hole_size functionality. BTW, what is the concern in having that function? > > Though as a first step, let us fix the x86_64 (as it doesn't boot when > > you have sizeable chunk of IO hole and nodes > 4). > > > > Ok. > > > I'm also not sure if other archs actually want to have this > > functionality. > > > > It's possible that the containers people are interested in the possibility > of setting up fake nodes as part of a memory controller. > That is precisely why I'm doing it :-) > >> What I think can be done is that you register memory as normal and then > >> split up the nodes into fake nodes. This would remove the need for having > >> e820_hole_size() reintroduced. > > > > Are you saying first let the system find out real numa topology and then > > build fake numa on top of it? > > > > Yes, there is nothing stopping you altering the early_node_map[] before > free_area_init_node() initialises the node_mem_map. If you do hit a > problem, it'll be because x86_64 allocates it's own node_mem_map with > CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP is set. Is that set when setting up fake nodes? > I thought they both (real numa + fake numa) operate on same data structures. I'll have to double check. -rohit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/