On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:41:16AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-07-17 15:41:47, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > JFYI. We have encountered a regression after applying this patch on a
> > > large ppc machine. While the patch is the righ
On Fri 28-07-17 15:41:47, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > JFYI. We have encountered a regression after applying this patch on a
> > large ppc machine. While the patch is the right thing to do it doesn't
> > work well with the current vmalloc area s
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> JFYI. We have encountered a regression after applying this patch on a
> large ppc machine. While the patch is the right thing to do it doesn't
> work well with the current vmalloc area size on ppc and large machines
> where NUMA nodes
JFYI. We have encountered a regression after applying this patch on a
large ppc machine. While the patch is the right thing to do it doesn't
work well with the current vmalloc area size on ppc and large machines
where NUMA nodes are very far from each other. Just for the reference
the boot fails on
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Michael Ellerman
commit ba4a648f12f4cd0a8003dd229b6ca8a53348ee4b upstream.
In commit 8c272261194d ("powerpc/numa: Enable USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID"), we
switched to the generic implementation of
5 matches
Mail list logo
