Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:57:37 +0100 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86,mm,64bit: Round up memory boundary for init_memory_mapping_high() |
| |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:18:44PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > Or better, can you please make that explicit? > > It currently depends on memories being registered in ascending address > > order, right? The memblock code already is NUMA aware, I think it > > would be far better to make the node affine part explicit. > > yes, memblock is numa aware after memblock_x86_register_active_regions(). > and it rely on early_node_map[]. > > do you mean let init_memory_mapping to take node id like setup_node_bootmem? > so find_early_table_space could take nodeid instead of tbl_end?
Yeap.
> > @@ -550,8 +548,12 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); > > } > > > > - if (start < end) > > + if (start < end) { > > + init_memory_mapping( > > + ALIGN_DOWN_TO_MAX_MAP_SIZE_AND_CONVERT_TO_PFN(start), > > + ALIGN_UP_SIMILARY_BUT_DONT_GO_OVER_MAX_PFN(end)); > > setup_node_bootmem(nid, start, end); > > + } > will have problem with cross node conf. like 0-4g, 8-12g on node0, 4g-8g, 12g-16g on node1.
And how common are they? This whole cruft is basically meaningless if 1GiB mapping is supported, IOW, basically on all AMD 64s and all post-nehalem intels. Why not just cite the limitation in the comment and stick to something simple?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |