On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/13/2013 11:04 AM, Mike Travis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/13/2013 10:51 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> by the time you can log in. And if it then takes another ten minutes
>>> until you have the full 16TB initialized, and some things might be a
>>> tad slower early on, does anybody really care? The machine will be up
>>> and running with plenty of memory, even if it may not be *all* the
>>> memory yet.
>>
>> Before the patches adding memory took ~45 mins for 16TB and almost 2 hours
>> for 32TB. Adding it late sped up early boot but late insertion was still
>> very slow, where the full 32TB was still not fully inserted after an hour.
>> Doing it in parallel along with the memory hotplug lock per node, we got
>> it down to the 10-15 minute range.
>>
>
> FYI, the system at this time had 128 nodes each with 256GB of memory.
> About 252GB was inserted into the absent list from nodes 1 .. 126.
> Memory on nodes 0 and 128 was left fully present.
Can we have one topic about those boot time issues in this year kernel summit?
There will be more 32 sockets x86 systems and will have lots of
memory, pci chain and cpu cores.
current kernel/smp.c::smp_init(), we still have
| /* FIXME: This should be done in userspace --RR */
| for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
| if (num_online_cpus() >= setup_max_cpus)
| break;
| if (!cpu_online(cpu))
| cpu_up(cpu);
| }
solution would be:
1. delay some memory, pci chain, or cpus cores.
2. or parallel initialize them during booting
3. or parallel add them after booting.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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>