Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now if it's better to set up a empty node or use a nearby node
> for a memory less cpu can be further discussed. I still think
> I lean towards the later.
Worst case: Only slot 0 is used. Plug your memoryless CPU card into the last
slot before your plug the
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with just setting the existing counters like
> > node_spanned_pages / node_present_pages to zero?
>
> Will this fix the breakage that Kame-san sa
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > NOD_DATA(nid) is always valid pointer if a node is online.
> > NODE_DATA(nid)->present_pages can be 0 even if a node is online,
> > I call this as memory-le
Andi Kleen wrote: [Tue Feb 13 2007, 01:18:45PM EST]
>
> > I wasn't suggesting having NULL pointers for pgdats, if that's what you
> > mean.
>
> That is what started the original thread at least. Can happen on some
> ia64 platforms.
I don't believe there is a NULL pgdat. The code for memory
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> What's wrong with just setting the existing counters like
> node_spanned_pages / node_present_pages to zero?
Will this fix the breakage that Kame-san saw?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a mess
Andi Kleen wrote:
I wasn't suggesting having NULL pointers for pgdats, if that's what you
mean.
That is what started the original thread at least. Can happen on some
ia64 platforms.
OK, that does seem kind of ugly.
Just nodes with no memory in them, the pgdat would still be there.
pgdat =
> I wasn't suggesting having NULL pointers for pgdats, if that's what you
> mean.
That is what started the original thread at least. Can happen on some
ia64 platforms.
> Just nodes with no memory in them, the pgdat would still be there.
> pgdat = struct node, except everything's badly named.
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
Adding NULL tests all over mm for this would seem like a clear case
of this to me.
Maybe there is an alternative. We are free to number the nodes right?
How about requiring the low node number to have memory and the high ones
d
Andi Kleen wrote:
Your description of the node is correct, it's an arbitrary container of
one or more resources. Not only is this definition flexible, it's also
very useful, for memory hotplug, odd types of NUMA boxes, etc.
I must disagree here. Special cases are always dangerous especially
if
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Adding NULL tests all over mm for this would seem like a clear case
> of this to me.
Maybe there is an alternative. We are free to number the nodes right?
How about requiring the low node number to have memory and the high ones
do not?
F.e. have a bound
> Your description of the node is correct, it's an arbitrary container of
> one or more resources. Not only is this definition flexible, it's also
> very useful, for memory hotplug, odd types of NUMA boxes, etc.
I must disagree here. Special cases are always dangerous especially
if they are hard
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> NOD_DATA(nid) is always valid pointer if a node is online.
> NODE_DATA(nid)->present_pages can be 0 even if a node is online,
> I call this as memory-less-node.
Yes but the pgdat will have no valid zone in it. That is new.
-
To unsubscribe from t
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The trouble with this is that you'll need to harden large parts
> of code against these. Especially a NULL pgdat is something quite
> dangerous. You could make it a dummy empty pgdat, but just assigning it
> nearby seems easier.
Plus there is the issue of
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
In my last posintg, mempolicy-fix-for-memory-less-node patch, there was a
discussion 'what do you consider definition of "node" as...?
I found there is no consensus. But I want to go ahead.
Before posing patch again, I'd like to discuss more.
-Kame
In my understanding,
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:29:49 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In my understanding, a "node" is a block of cpu, memory, devices.
> > and there could be cpu-only-node, memory-only-node, device-only-node...
>
> The trouble with this is that you'll need to harden large parts
> of co
> In my understanding, a "node" is a block of cpu, memory, devices.
> and there could be cpu-only-node, memory-only-node, device-only-node...
The trouble with this is that you'll need to harden large parts
of code against these. Especially a NULL pgdat is something quite
dangerous. You could mak
In my last posintg, mempolicy-fix-for-memory-less-node patch, there was a
discussion 'what do you consider definition of "node" as...?
I found there is no consensus. But I want to go ahead.
Before posing patch again, I'd like to discuss more.
-Kame
In my understanding, a "node" is a block of cpu
17 matches
Mail list logo
