From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764821AbYDOVTh (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:19:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754371AbYDOVT2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:19:28 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.235]:35540 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755778AbYDOVT1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:19:27 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=In6mFKTxKZCfu/Xl/WhDYobzIBK2ckFmkc9VH7LsyzkI5DtAJqrjId0Dw5H7y3eg0ACH+1rbP+VYcxGEHJ498vJvJv/Im/W877Fk3iJ6YUAUReenu6vSbi6ENh1deRVzhAeu9UZYrTuBIX3VfBkhhYZSP7P0bsDXzapu5adlY8o= Message-ID: <86802c440804151419i42f6a4caj3bb23b6c21d9238d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:19:20 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" To: "Johannes Weiner" , suresh.b.siddha@intel.com Subject: Re: + bootmem-node-setup-agnostic-free_bootmem.patch added to -mm tree Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, clameter@sgi.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <87ej96hlc1.fsf@saeurebad.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200804150623.m3F6NInZ014509@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20080415071120.GB15499@elte.hu> <87hce3i8mq.fsf@saeurebad.de> <86802c440804151157m5baab2efla7f35a8f98ac76b7@mail.gmail.com> <87mynuhp0o.fsf@saeurebad.de> <86802c440804151303k29295e9bp70c1046b8c9dca76@mail.gmail.com> <87ej96hlc1.fsf@saeurebad.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi, > > "Yinghai Lu" writes: > > > >> > 2. intel cross node box: node0: 0g-2g, 4g-6g, node1: 2g-4g, 6g-8g. i > >> > don't think they have two bdata struct for every node. > >> > >> How do the bdata structures represent this setup right now? Are you > >> sure that there is not a node descriptor for every contiguous region? > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/25/233 > > > > Subject [patch] srat, x86_64: Add support for nodes spanning other nodes > > > > For example, If the physical address layout on a two node system with 8 GB > > memory is something like: > > node 0: 0-2GB, 4-6GB > > node 1: 2-4GB, 6-8GB > > > > Current kernels fail to boot/detect this NUMA topology. > > > > ACPI SRAT tables can expose such a topology which needs to be supported. > > > > Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha > > As I understood the code (more guessing than understanding), it breaks > down these physical nodes into contiguous logical memory blocks which > then get represented by having a node descriptor for each of them. Can > you confirm that? Not sure, on x86_64 one node should have one bdata only. execpt suresh update that to make one node have two bdata. YH