On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:27:15PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:14:07PM +0800, Shaohui Zheng wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:10:50PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > > The idea that I've proposed (and you've apparently thought about and even > > > implemented at one point) is much more powerful than that. We need not > > > query the state of hidden nodes that we've setup at boot but can rather > > > use the amount of hidden memory to setup the nodes in any way that we want > > > at runtime (various sizes, interleaved node ids, etc). > > > > yes, if we select your proposal. we just mark all the nodes as POSSIBLE node. > > there is no hidden nodes any more. the node will be created after add memory > > to the node first time. > > > This is roughly what I had in mind in my N_HIDDEN review, so I quite > favour this approach. Our testing shows that it is a feasible approach, and it works well. however, there is still a problem which we should worry about. in our draft patch, we re-setup nr_node_ids when CONFIG_ARCH_MEMORY_PROBE enabled and mem=XXX was specified in grub. we set nr_node_ids as MAX_NUMNODES + 1, because we do not know how many nodes will be hot-added through memory/probe interface. it might be a little wasting of memory. -- Thanks & Regards, Shaohui -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>