On 02/07/2013 05:54 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:20:57 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
+ if (!strncmp(p, "acpi", max(4, strlen(p
+ movablemem_map.acpi = true;
Generates a warning:
mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'cmdline_parse_movablemem_map':
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:20:57 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
> >>
> >> + if (!strncmp(p, "acpi", max(4, strlen(p
> >> + movablemem_map.acpi = true;
> >
> > Generates a warning:
> >
> > mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'cmdline_parse_movablemem_map':
> > mm/page_alloc.c:5312: warning: comparison
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:20:57 +0800
Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
+ if (!strncmp(p, acpi, max(4, strlen(p
+ movablemem_map.acpi = true;
Generates a warning:
mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'cmdline_parse_movablemem_map':
mm/page_alloc.c:5312: warning:
On 02/07/2013 05:54 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:20:57 +0800
Tang Chentangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
+ if (!strncmp(p, acpi, max(4, strlen(p
+ movablemem_map.acpi = true;
Generates a warning:
mm/page_alloc.c: In function
On 02/05/2013 07:26 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
memory address in kernel commandline.
/*
* For movablemem_map=acpi:
*
* SRAT:
On 02/05/2013 07:26 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chentangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
memory address in kernel commandline.
/*
* For movablemem_map=acpi:
*
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
> We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
> memory address in kernel commandline.
>
> /*
> * For movablemem_map=acpi:
> *
> * SRAT:|_| |_| |_|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
memory address in kernel commandline.
/*
* For movablemem_map=acpi:
*
* SRAT:|_| |_|
> I will post a patch to fix it. How about always keep node0 unhotpluggable ?
Node 0 (or more specifically the node that contains memory <4GB) will be
full of BIOS reserved holes in the memory map. It probably isn't removable
even if Linux thinks it is. Someday we might have a smart BIOS that
On 01/26/2013 09:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
If users don't want to lose NUMA
On 01/26/2013 09:12 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chentangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
If users don't
I will post a patch to fix it. How about always keep node0 unhotpluggable ?
Node 0 (or more specifically the node that contains memory 4GB) will be
full of BIOS reserved holes in the memory map. It probably isn't removable
even if Linux thinks it is. Someday we might have a smart BIOS that can
On 01/26/2013 09:29 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/25/2013 05:12 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
On 01/26/2013 09:29 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/25/2013 05:12 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chentangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel
On 01/25/2013 05:12 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
> Tang Chen wrote:
>
>> NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
>> will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
>> If users don't want to lose
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
> NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
> will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
> If users don't want to lose NUMA performance, just don't use it.
I agree with this,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
> We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
> memory address in kernel commandline.
>
> /*
> * For movablemem_map=acpi:
> *
> * SRAT:|_| |_| |_|
We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
memory address in kernel commandline.
/*
* For movablemem_map=acpi:
*
* SRAT:|_| |_| |_| |_| ..
* node id:0 1
We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
memory address in kernel commandline.
/*
* For movablemem_map=acpi:
*
* SRAT:|_| |_| |_| |_| ..
* node id:0 1
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
We now provide an option for users who don't want to specify physical
memory address in kernel commandline.
/*
* For movablemem_map=acpi:
*
* SRAT:|_| |_|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
If users don't want to lose NUMA performance, just don't use it.
On 01/25/2013 05:12 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:42:09 +0800
Tang Chen tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
NOTE: Using this way will cause NUMA performance down because the whole node
will be set as ZONE_MOVABLE, and kernel cannot use memory on it.
If users don't
22 matches
Mail list logo
