lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-01 08:01    [W:0.167 / U:1.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site