Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [2.6.20][PATCH] fix mempolicy error check on a system with memory-less-node | Date | Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:41:25 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 11:37, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:19:02 +0100 > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > AFAIK, ia64 creates nodes just depends on SRAT's possible resource information. > > > Then, ia64 can create cpu-memory-less-node(node with no available resource.). > > > (*)I don't like this. > > > > > > If we don't allow memory-less-node, we may have to add several codes for cpu-hot-add. > > > cpus should be moved to nearby node at hotadd . > > > And node-hot-add have to care that cpus mustn't be added before memory, cpu-driven > > > node-hot-add will never occur. (ACPI's 'container' device spec can't guaranntee this.) > > > > You can also alias node numbers to solve this: just point multiple node numbers > > to the same pgdat. For a memory less node this would be a nearby one. > > > Hmm, interesting...the 'alias' means follwing ?
Yes.
> NODE_DATA(A) = pgdat_for_A > NODE_DATA(B) = pgdat_for_A // B is memory-less. > - NODE_DATA(B) is valid but B is not online.
Well it is online because A is. For all practical purposes it is A, just under a different name.
> == > looks complicated..and we have to care /sys/devices/system/node handling.
x86-64 used to do that when it still only did 1:1 cpu<->memory mappings. I don't remember any problems with it.
-Andi
- 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/
| |