Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:07:02 -0800 | Subject | Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node! | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Sorry, if you want to revert, you just need to revert: > > commit e8d1955258091e4c92d5a975ebd7fd8a98f5d30f > acpi, memory-hotplug: parse SRAT before memblock is ready > commit 01a178a94e8eaec351b29ee49fbb3d1c124cb7fb > acpi, memory-hotplug: support getting hotplug info from SRAT > > The other two have nothing to do with SRAT. And they are necessary. > > Seeing from the code, I think it is clean. But we'd better test it.
We should revert them all.
as
commit fb06bc8e5f42f38c011de0e59481f464a82380f6 Author: Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri Feb 22 16:33:42 2013 -0800
page_alloc: bootmem limit with movablecore_map
It is totally misleading in the TITLE. Come on, what is movablecore_map?
It actually use movablemem_map to exclude some range during memblock_find_in_range.
That make memblock less generic.
That patch is the base of the whole patchset.
Also you and Yasuaki keep saying: movablemem_map=srat. But where is doc and code for it? Looks like there is only movablemem_map=acpi.
I'm upset by this patchset.
Next time, please get Ack from TJ or Ben when you touch memblock code. And at least make the TITLE is right.
Thanks
Yinghai
| |