On 2012/11/27 11:19, Wen Congyang wrote: > At 11/27/2012 08:58 AM, Jianguo Wu Wrote: >> On 2012/11/26 23:48, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >>> On 11/26/2012 05:15 AM, Tang Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Wu, >>>> >>>> That is really a problem. And, before numa memory got initialized, >>>> memblock subsystem would be used to allocate memory. I didn't find any >>>> approach that could fully address it when I making the patches. There >>>> always be risk that memblock allocates memory on ZONE_MOVABLE. I think >>>> we can only do our best to prevent it from happening. >>>> >>>> Your patch is very helpful. And after a shot look at the code, it seems >>>> that acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() is an architecture dependent >>>> function. Could we do this somewhere which is not depending on the >>>> architecture ? >>>> >>> >>> The movable memory should be classified as a non-RAM type in memblock, >>> that way we will not allocate from it early on. >>> >>> -hpa >> >> >> yep, we can put movable memory in reserved.regions in memblock. > > Hmm, I don't think so. If so, memory in reserved.regions contain two type > memory: bootmem and movable memory. We will put all pages not in reserved.regions > into buddy system. If we put movable memory in reserved.regions, we have > no chance to put them to buddy system, and can't use them after system boots. > yes, you are right. Or we can fix movablecore_map when add memory region to memblock. > Thanks > Wen Congyang > >> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> >> >> >> > > > . > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>