[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Patch1/4]: fake numa for x86_64 patch
    On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Rohit Seth wrote:

    > Hi Mel,
    > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:18 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
    >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Rohit Seth wrote:
    >>> This patch provides a IO hole size in a given address range.
    >> Hi,
    >> This patch reintroduces a function that doubles up what
    >> absent_pages_in_range(start_pfn, end_pfn). I recognise you do this because
    >> you are interested in hole sizes before add_active_range() is called.
    > Right.
    >> However, what is not clear is why these patches are so specific to x86_64.
    > Specifically in the fake numa case, we want to make sure that we don't
    > carve fake nodes that only have IO holes in it. Unlike the real NUMA
    > case, here we don't have SRAT etc. to know the memory layout beforehand.
    >> It looks possible to do the work of functions like split_nodes_equal() in
    >> an architecture-independent manner using early_node_map rather than
    >> dealing with the arch-specific nodes array. That would open the
    >> possibility of providing fake nodes on more than one architecture in the
    >> future.
    > The functions like splti_nodes_equal etc. can be abstracted out to arch
    > independent part. I think the only API it needs from arch dependent
    > part is to find out how much real RAM is present in range without have
    > to first do add_active_range.

    That is a problem because the ranges must be registered with
    add_active_range() to work out how much real RAM is present.

    > Though as a first step, let us fix the x86_64 (as it doesn't boot when
    > you have sizeable chunk of IO hole and nodes > 4).


    > I'm also not sure if other archs actually want to have this
    > functionality.

    It's possible that the containers people are interested in the possibility
    of setting up fake nodes as part of a memory controller.

    >> What I think can be done is that you register memory as normal and then
    >> split up the nodes into fake nodes. This would remove the need for having
    >> e820_hole_size() reintroduced.
    > Are you saying first let the system find out real numa topology and then
    > build fake numa on top of it?

    Yes, there is nothing stopping you altering the early_node_map[] before
    free_area_init_node() initialises the node_mem_map. If you do hit a
    problem, it'll be because x86_64 allocates it's own node_mem_map with
    CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP is set. Is that set when setting up fake nodes?

    Mel Gorman
    Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
    University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-28 14:27    [W:0.023 / U:49.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site