At 11/27/2012 11:22 AM, Jianguo Wu Wrote: > 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. If so, we should know the nodes address range... Thanks Wen Congyang >> 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>