On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> So if we compare to x86:
>
> arch/x86/mm/numa.c::numa_init():
>
> nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed);
> nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
> nodes_clear(node_online_map);
> ...
> numa_register_memblks(...);
>
> arch/x
On 05.03.2015 [17:13:08 -0500], Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:05:49AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > While looking at this, I noticed that nr_node_ids is actually a
> > misnomer, it seems. It's not the number, but the maximum_node_id, as
> > with sparse NUMA nodes, you might
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:21:35PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> So, do you agree with the general direction of my change? :)
Yeah, I mean it's an obvious bug fix. I don't know when or how it
should be set on powerpc but if the machine can't do NUMA node
hotplug, its node online and possibl
On 05.03.2015 [17:08:04 -0500], Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:58:27PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > I'm not sure why this is being proposed as a powerpc patch and now a patch
> > for mem_cgroup_css_alloc(). In other words, why do we have to allocate
> > for all pos
On 05.03.2015 [13:58:27 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > > index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > >
On 06.03.2015 [08:48:52 +1100], Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 13:16 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> > > --- a/arc
Hi David,
On 05.03.2015 [13:16:35 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:08:04PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It can be argued that we should always stick to the online masks for
> allocation and iteration; however, that usually requires more
> complexity and the only cases where this mattered have been when the
> boot code got it wrong and faile
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:05:49AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> While looking at this, I noticed that nr_node_ids is actually a
> misnomer, it seems. It's not the number, but the maximum_node_id, as
> with sparse NUMA nodes, you might only have two NUMA nodes possible, but
> to make certain
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:58:27PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> I'm not sure why this is being proposed as a powerpc patch and now a patch
> for mem_cgroup_css_alloc(). In other words, why do we have to allocate
> for all possible nodes? We should only be allocating for online nodes i
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > @@ -958,9 +958,17 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
> > >
> > >
On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 13:16 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -958,9 +
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -958,9 +958,17 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
>
> memblock_dump_all(
13 matches
Mail list logo
