2013/01/15 7:46, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:41:03 +0000
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hm, why. Obviously SRAT support will improve things, but is it
actually unusable/unuseful with the command line configuration?
Users will want to set these moveable zones along node boundaries
(the whole purpose is to be able to remove a node by making sure
the kernel won't allocate anything tricky in it, right?) So raw addresses
are usable ... but to get them right the user will have to go parse the
SRAT table manually to come up with the addresses. Any time you
make the user go off and do some tedious calculation that the computer
should have done for them is user-abuse.
Sure. But SRAT configuration is in progress and the boot option is
better than nothing?
Yes. I think boot option which specifies memory range is necessary.
Things I'm wondering:
- is there *really* a case for retaining the boot option if/when
SRAT support is available?
Yes. If SRAT support is available, all memory which enabled hotpluggable
bit are managed by ZONEMOVABLE. But performance degradation may
occur by NUMA because we can only allocate anonymous page and page-cache
from these memory.
In this case, if user cannot change SRAT information, user needs a way to
select/set removable memory manually.
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
- will the boot option be needed for other archictectures, presumably
because they don't provide sufficient layout information to the
kernel?
--
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>