Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:25:24 +0300 | From | Mika Penttilä <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes |
| |
>>> static __init inline int srat_disabled(void) >>> @@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ static int hotadd_enough_memory(struct b >>> >>> if (mem < 0) >>> return 0; >>> - allowed = (end_pfn - e820_hole_size(0, end_pfn)) * PAGE_SIZE; >>> + allowed = (end_pfn - absent_pages_in_range(0, end_pfn)) * >>> PAGE_SIZE; >>> allowed = (allowed / 100) * hotadd_percent; >>> if (allocated + mem > allowed) { >>> unsigned long range; >>> @@ -238,7 +239,7 @@ static int reserve_hotadd(int node, unsi >>> } >>> >>> /* This check might be a bit too strict, but I'm keeping it for >>> now. */ >>> - if (e820_hole_size(s_pfn, e_pfn) != e_pfn - s_pfn) { >>> + if (absent_pages_in_range(s_pfn, e_pfn) != e_pfn - s_pfn) { >>> printk(KERN_ERR "SRAT: Hotplug area has existing >>> memory\n"); >>> return -1; >>> } >>> >> We really do want to to compare against the e820 map at it contains >> the memory that is really present (this info was blown away before >> acpi_numa) >> > > The information used by absent_pages_in_range() should match what was > available to e820_hole_size(). > > But it doesn't : all active ranges are removed before parsing srat. I think we really need to check against e820 here.
--Mika
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |