Hi Florian,
thanks for your message. Please, find the replies in-line.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:40:02PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> While the "hack" that sets/clears NOMAP in order for pfn_valid() to
> return false/true when appropriate during __add_pages() definitively
> does seem to work
Hi Andrea, Maciej,
On 02/06/2017 03:17 AM, Andrea Reale wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> Hi all,
>
> in reply to the issues that Scott reported last month, myself and Maciej
> investigated further by running quite a number of experiments on the
> physical and virtual environments we have avaialable.
>
> We
Hi Andrea,
On 17-02-06 03:17 AM, Andrea Reale wrote:
Hi Scott,
Hi all,
in reply to the issues that Scott reported last month, myself and Maciej
investigated further by running quite a number of experiments on the
physical and virtual environments we have avaialable.
We collected all the result
Hi Scott,
Hi all,
in reply to the issues that Scott reported last month, myself and Maciej
investigated further by running quite a number of experiments on the
physical and virtual environments we have avaialable.
We collected all the results and relevant logs in a Web page at
https://hotplug-tes
Hi Maciej,
On 16-12-21 01:44 AM, Maciej Bielski wrote:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for testing it and providing us the feedback. For replicating the
problem you have reported,
could you provide more info on your system configuration, please?
Among others, few questions that we have in mind are:
* What is
Hi Scott,
Thanks for testing it and providing us the feedback. For replicating the
problem you have reported,
could you provide more info on your system configuration, please?
Among others, few questions that we have in mind are:
* What is the RAM size at boot? Is it multiple of 1GB (or precisely
Hi Maciej,
I have applied that patch ontop of the patches I previously sent out
and tested.
It does recognized the memory in /proc/iomem but I get memory corruption
of the original system RAM soon after. It appears the page allocation
gets corrupted. I will try to dig into it further but if
On 2016/12/16 2:31, Andrea Reale wrote:
> Hi Xishi Qiu,
>
> thanks for your comments.
>
> The short anwser to your question is the following. As you hinted,
> it is related to the way pfn_valid() is implemented in arm64 when
> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID is true (default), i.e., just a check fo
Hi Xishi Qiu,
thanks for your comments.
The short anwser to your question is the following. As you hinted,
it is related to the way pfn_valid() is implemented in arm64 when
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID is true (default), i.e., just a check for
the NOMAP flags on the corresponding memblocks.
Sinc
On 2016/12/15 14:18, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2016/12/14 20:16, Maciej Bielski wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
>> -int arch_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
>> -{
>> -unsigned long start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> -unsigned long nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> -
On 2016/12/14 20:16, Maciej Bielski wrote:
>
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
> -int arch_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
> -{
> - unsigned long start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - unsigned long nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - struct zone *zone;
> - int ret;
> +
11 matches
Mail list logo
