On Tue 14-03-17 20:35:21, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 10-03-17 13:00:37, Reza Arbab wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:53:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >OK, so while I was playing with this setup some mo
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-03-17 13:00:37, Reza Arbab wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:53:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >OK, so while I was playing with this setup some more I probably got why
> > >this is done this way. All new memb
On Tue 14-03-17 12:05:59, YASUAKI ISHIMATSU wrote:
>
>
> On 03/13/2017 05:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Fri 10-03-17 12:39:27, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >>On 03/10/2017 08:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >>># echo online_movable > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory34/state
> >>># grep . /sy
On 03/13/2017 05:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 10-03-17 12:39:27, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
On 03/10/2017 08:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
OK so I did with -m 2G,slots=4,maxmem=4G -numa node,mem=1G -numa node,mem=1G
which generated
[...]
[0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x
> and ARCH_SPARSEMEM_DEFAULT is enabeld on 64b. So I guess whatever was
> the reason to add this code back in 2006 is not true anymore. So I am
> really wondering. Do we absolutely need to assign pages which are not
> onlined yet to the ZONE_NORMAL unconditionally? Why cannot we put them
> out of a
Let's add Andi
On Fri 10-03-17 16:53:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 10-03-17 14:58:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > This would explain why onlining from the last block actually works but
> > to me this sounds like a completely crappy behavior. All we need to
> > guarantee AFAICS is that Norma
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
I agree with your general sentiment that this stuff is very
nonintuitive.
My criterion for nonintuitive is probably different because I would
call this _completely_unusable_. Sorry for being so loud about this but
the more I look i
On Mon 13-03-17 14:57:12, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:43:02 +0100
> Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 13-03-17 11:31:10, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:58:07 +0100
> > [...]
> > > > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x-0x0009]
> > > > [
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:43:02 +0100
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 13-03-17 11:31:10, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:58:07 +0100
> [...]
> > > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x-0x0009]
> > > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x0010-0x3f
On Mon 13-03-17 11:31:10, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:58:07 +0100
[...]
> > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x-0x0009]
> > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x0010-0x3fff]
> > [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 1 PXM 1 [mem 0x4000-0x7ff
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:58:07 +0100
Michal Hocko wrote:
> Let's CC people touching this logic. A short summary is that onlining
> memory via udev is currently unusable for online_movable because blocks
> are added from lower addresses while movable blocks are allowed from
> last blocks. More below
On Fri 10-03-17 13:00:37, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:53:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >OK, so while I was playing with this setup some more I probably got why
> >this is done this way. All new memblocks are added to the zone Normal
> >where they are accounted as spanned but
On Fri 10-03-17 12:39:27, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 08:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >OK so I did with -m 2G,slots=4,maxmem=4G -numa node,mem=1G -numa node,mem=1G
> >which generated
> >[...]
> >[0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x-0x0009]
> >[0.00
On 03/10/2017 08:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Let's CC people touching this logic. A short summary is that onlining
memory via udev is currently unusable for online_movable because blocks
are added from lower addresses while movable blocks are allowed from
last blocks. More below.
On Thu 09-03-1
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:53:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
OK, so while I was playing with this setup some more I probably got why
this is done this way. All new memblocks are added to the zone Normal
where they are accounted as spanned but not present.
It's not always zone Normal. See zone_
On Fri 10-03-17 14:58:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> This would explain why onlining from the last block actually works but
> to me this sounds like a completely crappy behavior. All we need to
> guarantee AFAICS is that Normal and Movable zones do not overlap. I
> believe there is even no real re
Let's CC people touching this logic. A short summary is that onlining
memory via udev is currently unusable for online_movable because blocks
are added from lower addresses while movable blocks are allowed from
last blocks. More below.
On Thu 09-03-17 13:54:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-03-1
17 matches
Mail list logo
