Hello:
On 06/14/2017 12:27 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michael Bringmann
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On a related note, we are discussing the addition of 2 new device-tree
>>> properties
>>> with Pete Heyrman and
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michael Bringmann
wrote:
> On a related note, we are discussing the addition of 2 new device-tree
> properties
> with Pete Heyrman and his fellows that should simplify the determination
> of the
> set of required nodes.
>
> * One property would provide the total/m
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michael Bringmann
> wrote:
>>
>> On a related note, we are discussing the addition of 2 new device-tree
>> properties
>> with Pete Heyrman and his fellows that should simplify the determination
>> of the
>
On a related note, we are discussing the addition of 2 new device-tree
properties
with Pete Heyrman and his fellows that should simplify the determination of the
set of required nodes.
* One property would provide the total/max number of nodes needed by the kernel
on the current hardware.
* A s
Michael Bringmann writes:
> Here is the information from 2 different kernels. I have not been able to
> retrieve
> the information matching yesterday's attachments, yet, as those dumps were
> acquired in April.
>
> Attached please find 2 dumps of similar material from kernels running with my
Here is the information from 2 different kernels. I have not been able to retrieve
the information matching yesterday's attachments, yet, as those dumps were
acquired in April.
Attached please find 2 dumps of similar material from kernels running with my
current patches (Linux 4.4, Linux 4.12).
Here is the information from 2 different kernels. I have not been able to
retrieve
the information matching yesterday's attachments, yet, as those dumps were
acquired in April.
Attached please find 2 dumps of similar material from kernels running with my
current patches (Linux 4.4, Linux 4.12)
Michael Bringmann writes:
> On 06/06/2017 04:48 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Michael Bringmann writes:
>>> On 06/01/2017 04:36 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Do you actually see mention of nodes 0 and 8 in the dmesg?
>>>
>>> When the 'numa.c' code is built with debug messages, and the system
Reza Arbab writes:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:36:31PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>I don't think that's what the patch does. It just marks 32 (!?) nodes
>>as online. Or if you're talking about reverting 3af229f2071f that
>>leaves you with 256 possible nodes. Both of which are wasteful.
>
On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 16:33 -0500, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:36:31PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > I don't think that's what the patch does. It just marks 32 (!?) nodes
> > as online. Or if you're talking about reverting 3af229f2071f that
> > leaves you with 256 possible
On 06/06/2017 04:48 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann writes:
>> On 06/01/2017 04:36 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Do you actually see mention of nodes 0 and 8 in the dmesg?
>>
>> When the 'numa.c' code is built with debug messages, and the system was
>> given that configuration
Michael Bringmann writes:
> On 06/01/2017 04:36 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Do you actually see mention of nodes 0 and 8 in the dmesg?
>
> When the 'numa.c' code is built with debug messages, and the system was
> given that configuration by pHyp, yes, I did.
>
>> What does it say?
>
> The debug
On 06/01/2017 04:36 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann writes:
>
>> On 05/29/2017 12:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Reza Arbab writes:
>>>
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Reza Arbab writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:1
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:36:31PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
I don't think that's what the patch does. It just marks 32 (!?) nodes
as online. Or if you're talking about reverting 3af229f2071f that
leaves you with 256 possible nodes. Both of which are wasteful.
To be clear, with Balbir's s
Michael Bringmann writes:
> On 05/29/2017 12:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Reza Arbab writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Reza Arbab writes:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> The commit mess
On 05/29/2017 12:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Reza Arbab writes:
>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Reza Arbab writes:
>>>
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>
>>
Reza Arbab writes:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>Reza Arbab writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes,
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Reza Arbab writes:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
do not support node h
I am running into this problem on PowerPC systems where Balbir's patch set
was targeted. So, yes, I do need to be able to add/enable a new numa node
during system execution in cases where more resources (memory, virtual
processors) are added to the system dynamically.
On 05/25/2017 10:46 PM, Mich
Reza Arbab writes:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>
>>In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>^^^
On Thu, 25 May 2017 10:10:11 -0500
Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
> >
> >In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
> >do not support node hotplug on power in t
On 05/25/2017 10:10 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>
>>In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>do not support node hotplug on power in the first place
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
^
On 05/25/2017 01:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann writes:
>
>> On 05/24/2017 06:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Michael Bringmann writes:
With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something,
somewhere to add new
bits to the 'node_possibl
Michael Bringmann writes:
> On 05/24/2017 06:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Michael Bringmann writes:
>>>
>>> With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something,
>>> somewhere to add new
>>> bits to the 'node_possible_map'. That is not being done.
>>
>> You mustn't add bits
On 05/24/2017 06:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann writes:
>
>> On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michae
I will get a log based on the latest 4.12 kernel to show what happens
one way or the other, with this patch removed.
On 05/24/2017 09:36 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 05:44:23PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 05:44:23PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
+static
Michael Bringmann writes:
> On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>>
On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
+static void setup_nodes(void)
+{
+int i, l = 32 /*
On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
+static void setup_nodes(void)
+{
+int i, l = 32 /*
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
+static void setup_nodes(void)
+{
+int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
+
+for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
+if (
On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>> +{
>> +int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>> +
>> +for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>> +if (!node_possible(i)) {
>> +setup_node_d
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
+static void setup_nodes(void)
+{
+ int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
+ if (!node_possible(i)) {
+ setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
+ nod
Removing or adding memory via the PowerPC hotplug interface shows
anomalies in the association between memory and nodes. The code
was updated to initialize more possible nodes to make them available
to subsequent DLPAR hotplug-memory operations, even if they are not
needed at boot time.
Signed-o
35 matches
Mail list logo
