On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:48 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 12/12/2012 05:18 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 16:17 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> 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. > > But if we went and did it per-DIMM (showing which physical addresses and > NUMA nodes a DIMM maps to), wouldn't that be redundant with this > proposed interface? > If DIMMs overlap between nodes, then we wouldn't have an exact range for a node in question. Having both approaches would complement each other. > How do you plan to use this in practice, btw? > It started because I needed to recognize the address of a node to remove it from the e820 mappings and have the system "ignore" the node's memory. 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>