From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Hoan Tran <Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lho@amperecomputing.com, mmorana@amperecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:42:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330074246.GA14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
>
> For example, with layout below
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
>
> Note:
> - Memory from low to high
> - 0/1: Node id
> - x: Invalid memory of a node
>
> When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
>
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
>
> This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
which is clearly an overkill.
Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
arch specific code.
> v3:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> V2:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> Hoan Tran (5):
> mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
> powerpc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> x86: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> sparc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> s390: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
>
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/s390/Kconfig | 8 --------
> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Hoan Tran <Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc: mmorana@amperecomputing.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
x86@kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
lho@amperecomputing.com, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 07:42:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330074246.GA14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
>
> For example, with layout below
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
>
> Note:
> - Memory from low to high
> - 0/1: Node id
> - x: Invalid memory of a node
>
> When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
>
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
>
> This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
which is clearly an overkill.
Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
arch specific code.
> v3:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> V2:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> Hoan Tran (5):
> mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
> powerpc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> x86: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> sparc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> s390: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
>
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/s390/Kconfig | 8 --------
> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Hoan Tran <Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc: mmorana@amperecomputing.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
lho@amperecomputing.com, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:42:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330074246.GA14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
>
> For example, with layout below
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
>
> Note:
> - Memory from low to high
> - 0/1: Node id
> - x: Invalid memory of a node
>
> When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
>
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
>
> This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
which is clearly an overkill.
Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
arch specific code.
> v3:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> V2:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> Hoan Tran (5):
> mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
> powerpc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> x86: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> sparc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> s390: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
>
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/s390/Kconfig | 8 --------
> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Hoan Tran <Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
Cc: mmorana@amperecomputing.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
x86@kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
lho@amperecomputing.com, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:42:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200330074246.GA14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com>
On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
>
> For example, with layout below
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
>
> Note:
> - Memory from low to high
> - 0/1: Node id
> - x: Invalid memory of a node
>
> When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
>
> Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
>
> This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
which is clearly an overkill.
Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
arch specific code.
> v3:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> V2:
> * Revise the patch description
>
> Hoan Tran (5):
> mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA
> powerpc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> x86: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> sparc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> s390: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
>
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/s390/Kconfig | 8 --------
> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 ---------
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-30 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 156+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-28 18:31 [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] " Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] powerpc: Kconfig: Remove CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: " Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] sparc: " Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] s390: " Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-28 18:31 ` Hoan Tran
2020-03-29 0:19 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA Baoquan He
2020-03-29 0:19 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-29 0:19 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-29 0:19 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 7:44 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 8:04 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:04 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:04 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:04 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 7:42 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-03-30 7:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 7:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 7:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 8:16 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:16 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:16 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:16 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:28 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:28 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:28 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 8:28 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 9:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 9:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 9:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 9:21 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 9:58 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 9:58 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 9:58 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 9:58 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 10:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 10:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 10:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 10:26 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 10:43 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 10:43 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 10:43 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 10:43 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 21:56 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 21:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 21:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 21:56 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODE Mike Rapoport
2020-04-01 5:42 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Baoquan He
2020-04-01 5:42 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-01 5:42 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-01 5:42 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_ Baoquan He
2020-04-01 7:51 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Mike Rapoport
2020-04-01 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-04-01 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-04-01 7:51 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_ Mike Rapoport
2020-04-02 8:01 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Michal Hocko
2020-04-02 8:01 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-02 8:01 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-02 8:01 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_ Michal Hocko
2020-04-09 14:41 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Baoquan He
2020-04-09 14:41 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-09 14:41 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-09 14:41 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_ Baoquan He
2020-04-09 15:33 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Michal Hocko
2020-04-09 15:33 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-09 15:33 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-09 15:33 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_ Michal Hocko
2020-04-10 6:46 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA) Baoquan He
2020-04-10 6:46 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-10 6:46 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-10 6:46 ` [PATCH RFC] mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (was: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_ Baoquan He
2020-03-30 9:26 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA Baoquan He
2020-03-30 9:26 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 9:26 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 9:26 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-30 17:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 17:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 17:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 17:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-30 18:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 18:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 18:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-30 18:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 8:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 8:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 8:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 8:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-03-31 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 8:55 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 14:03 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:03 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:03 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:03 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 14:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 14:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 14:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-31 14:31 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:31 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:31 ` Baoquan He
2020-03-31 14:31 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-03 4:46 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 4:46 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 4:46 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 4:46 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 7:09 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-03 7:09 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-03 7:09 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-03 7:09 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-03 16:36 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 16:36 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 16:36 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-03 16:36 ` Hoan Tran
2020-04-09 16:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-04-09 16:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-04-09 16:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-04-09 16:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-04-10 6:50 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-10 6:50 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-10 6:50 ` Baoquan He
2020-04-10 6:50 ` Baoquan He
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200330074246.GA14243@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=lho@amperecomputing.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mmorana@amperecomputing.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.