On 12/12/2012 06:03 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:48 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >> But if we went and did it per-DIMM (showing which physical addresses and >> NUMA nodes a DIMM maps to), wouldn't that be redundant with this >> proposed interface? > > If DIMMs overlap between nodes, then we wouldn't have an exact range for > a node in question. Having both approaches would complement each other.
How is that possible? If NUMA nodes are defined by distances from CPUs to memory, how could a DIMM have more than a single distance to any given CPU? >> How do you plan to use this in practice, btw? > > It started because I needed to recognize the address of a node to remove > it from the e820 mappings and have the system "ignore" the node's > memory. Actually, now that I think about it, can you check in the /sys/devices/system/ directories for memory and nodes? We have linkages there for each memory section to every NUMA node, and you can also derive the physical address from the phys_index in each section. That should allow you to work out physical addresses for a given node. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
