From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86, numa: Do not adjust start/end for early_node_mem()
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:39:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110222103920.GY31267@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110222103653.GX31267@htj.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:36:53AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, don't remove the DMA boundary limit. Even if the current code
> wouldn't result in that (and the current code CAN), it is a good
> sanity check to have because you don't want memory map under 16MiB no
> matter what.
Oh, if you're genuinely concerned about machines which wouldn't be
able to allocate memory map because it doesn't have enough memory
above 16MiB, the correct thing to do is removing the boundary limit
from the fallback generic allocation, NOT from the NUMA aware
allocation.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-22 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4D5EC05A.60103@kernel.org>
2011-02-18 18:59 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86, numa: Do not scan two times for setup_node_bootmem() Yinghai Lu
2011-02-20 4:03 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-21 10:20 ` [PATCH] x86-64, NUMA: " Tejun Heo
2011-02-18 18:59 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86, numa: Do not adjust start/end for early_node_mem() Yinghai Lu
2011-02-20 4:03 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-20 4:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-21 9:43 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-21 10:44 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-21 20:28 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-22 10:36 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-22 10:39 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-02-21 17:21 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-22 0:27 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-18 18:59 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86, numa: cleanup x86_acpi_numa_init() Yinghai Lu
2011-02-20 4:03 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-21 9:46 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-18 18:59 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86, numa: seperate alloc_numa_distance from numa_reset_distance Yinghai Lu
2011-02-20 4:03 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-21 10:48 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-21 17:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-22 10:23 ` [PATCH] x86-64, NUMA: Seperate out numa_alloc_distance() from numa_set_distance() Tejun Heo
2011-02-22 10:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-22 10:32 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110222103920.GY31267@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®