On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 16:17 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 03:51 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> > +static ssize_t node_read_memrange(struct device *dev,
> >> > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> >> > +{
> >> > + int nid = dev->id;
> >> > + unsigned long start_pfn = NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn;
> >> > + unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages;
> > hm. Is this correct for all for
> > FLATMEM/SPARSEMEM/SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP/DISCONTIGME/etc?
>
> It's not _wrong_ per se, but it's not super precise, either.
>
> The problem is, it's quite valid to have these node_start/spanned ranges
> overlap between two or more nodes on some hardware. So, if the desired
> purpose is to map nodes to DIMMs, then this can only accomplish this on
> _some_ hardware, not all. It would be completely useless for that
> purpose for some configurations.
>
> Seems like the better way to do this would be to expose the DIMMs
> themselves in some way, and then map _those_ back to a node.
>
Good point, and from a DIMM perspective, I agree, and will look into
this. However, IMHO, having the range of physical addresses for every
node still provides valuable information, from a NUMA point of view. For
example, dealing with node related e820 mappings.
Andrew, with the documentation patch, would you be wiling to pickup a v2
of this?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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>