Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:18:53 +0800 | From | Tang Chen <> | Subject | Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node! |
| |
On 03/01/2013 01:00 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thursday, February 28, 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 02/28/2013 08:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> Yingai, Andrew, >>> is this ok with you two? >>> >>> Linus >> >> FWIW, it makes sense to me iff it resolves the problems > > > I prefer to reverting all 8 patches. > > Actually I have worked out one patch that could solve all problems, but it > is too intrusive that I do not want to split it to small pieces to > post it. > > Leaving the movablemem_map related changes in the upstream tree, > will prevent me from continuing to make memblock to be used to allocate > page table on local node ram for hot add.
Hi Yinghai,
Would you please give me a url to your code ?
I don't think movablemem_map will block your work a lot. According to your description, you are modifying memblock to reserve some memory for local node pagetables, right ?
If so, I think it won't be too difficult to make the code OK with your work.
Thanks. :)
> > Will send reverting patch and putting page table on local node patch around > 10pm after I get home. > > Thanks >
| |