On 28.01.2014 [10:34:57 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Anton Blanchard found an issue with an LPAR that had no memory in Node
> 0. Christoph Lameter recommended, as one possible solution, to use
> numa_mem_id() for locality of the nearest memory node-wise. However,
> numa_mem_id() [and the other related APIs] are only useful if
> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is set. This is only the case for ia64
> currently, but clearly we can have memoryless nodes on ppc64. Add the
> Kconfig option and define it to be the same value as CONFIG_NUMA.
>
> On the LPAR in question, which was very inefficiently using slabs, this
> took the slab consumption at boot from roughly 7GB to roughly 4GB.
Err, this should have been
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
!
Sorry about that Ben!
> ---
> Ben, the only question I have wrt this change is if it's appropriate to
> change it for all powerpc configs (that have NUMA on)?
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> index 25493a0..bb2d5fe 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> @@ -447,6 +447,9 @@ config NODES_SHIFT
> default "4"
> depends on NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
>
> +config HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
> + def_bool NUMA
> +
> config ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL
> def_bool y
> depends on PPC64
--
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>