On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 11:14 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> SRAT need not guarantee any alignment at all in the memory affinity
> structure (the address in 64-bit byte address)
The Summit machines (the only x86 user of the SRAT) have other hardware
guarantees about alignment, so I guess th
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 10:20:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:31 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > Yes, it does cause a crash.
>
> I d
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 18:31 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > While reserving KVA for lmem_maps of node, we have to make sure that
> > > node_remap_start_pfn[] is al
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:17:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > While reserving KVA for lmem_maps of node, we have to make sure that
> > node_remap_start_pfn[] is aligned to a proper pmd boundary.
> > (node_remap_start_pfn[] gets its value
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While reserving KVA for lmem_maps of node, we have to make sure that
> node_remap_start_pfn[] is aligned to a proper pmd boundary.
> (node_remap_start_pfn[] gets its value from node_end_pfn[])
>
What are the effects of not having this patch ap
While reserving KVA for lmem_maps of node, we have to make sure that
node_remap_start_pfn[] is aligned to a proper pmd boundary.
(node_remap_start_pfn[] gets its value from node_end_pfn[])
Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ind
6 matches
Mail list logo