Hi Yinghai, Would you please help to review this patch-set ? And how do you think of the memblock flag idea ? FYI, Liu Jiang has proposed a similar idea before. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/422 But we may have the following difference: 1) It is a flag, not a tag, which means a range may have several different attributes. 2) Mark node-lify-cycle data, and put it on local node, and free it when hot-removing. 3) Mark and reserve movable memory, as you did. Thanks. :) On 03/21/2013 05:21 PM, Tang Chen wrote:
Hi Yinghai, all, This patch-set is based on Yinghai's tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git for-x86-mm For main line, we need to apply Yinghai's "x86, ACPI, numa: Parse numa info early" patch-set first. Please refer to: v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/7/642 v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/10/47 In this part2 patch-set, we didi the following things: 1) Introduce a "bool hotpluggable" member into struct numa_memblk so that we are able to know which memory ranges in numa_meminfo are hotpluggable. All the related apis have been changed. 2) Introduce a new global variable "numa_meminfo_all" to store all the memory ranges recorded in SRAT, because numa_cleanup_meminfo() will remove ranges higher than max_pfn. We need full numa memory info to limit zone_movable_pfn[]. 3) Move movablemem_map sanitization after memory mapping is initialized so that pagetable allocation will not be limited by movablemem_map. On the other hand, we may have another way to solve this problem: Not only pagetable and vmemmap pages, but also all the data whose life cycle is the same as a node, could be put on local node. 1) Introduce a flag into memblock, such as "LOCAL_NODE_DATA", to mark out which ranges have the same life cycle with node. 2) Only keep existing memory ranges in movablemem_map (no need to introduce numa_meminfo_all), and exclude these LOCAL_NODE_DATA ranges. 3) When hot-removing, we are able to find out these ranges, and free them first. This is very important. Also, hot-add logic needs to be modified, too. As Yinghai mentioned before, I think we can make memblock alive when memory is hot-added. And go with the same logic as it is when booting. How do you think? Tang Chen (4): x86, mm, numa, acpi: Introduce numa_meminfo_all to store all the numa meminfo. x86, mm, numa, acpi: Introduce hotplug info into struct numa_meminfo. x86, mm, numa, acpi: Consider hotplug info when cleanup numa_meminfo. x86, mm, numa, acpi: Sanitize movablemem_map after memory mapping initialized. arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h | 3 +- arch/x86/kernel/apic/numaq_32.c | 2 +- arch/x86/mm/amdtopology.c | 3 +- arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 161 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- arch/x86/mm/numa_internal.h | 1 + arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 141 +++++----------------------------- 6 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
