From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jon Tollefson <kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: properly reserve in bootmem the lmb reserved regions that cross NUMA nodes
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:55:16 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1223614516.8157.154.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48EE6720.6010601@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:18 -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> If there are multiple reserved memory blocks via lmb_reserve() that are
> contiguous addresses and on different NUMA nodes we are losing track of which
> address ranges to reserve in bootmem on which node. I discovered this
> when I recently got to try 16GB huge pages on a system with more then 2 nodes.
I'm going to apply it, however, could you double check something for
me ? A cursory glance of the new version makes me wonder, what if the
first call to get_node_active_region() ends up with the work_fn never
hitting the if () case ? I think in that case, node_ar->end_pfn never
gets initialized right ? Can that happen in practice ? I suspect that
isn't the case but better safe than sorry...
If there's indeed a potential problem, please send a fixup patch.
Cheers,
Ben.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jon Tollefson <kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: properly reserve in bootmem the lmb reserved regions that cross NUMA nodes
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:55:16 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1223614516.8157.154.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48EE6720.6010601@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:18 -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> If there are multiple reserved memory blocks via lmb_reserve() that are
> contiguous addresses and on different NUMA nodes we are losing track of which
> address ranges to reserve in bootmem on which node. I discovered this
> when I recently got to try 16GB huge pages on a system with more then 2 nodes.
I'm going to apply it, however, could you double check something for
me ? A cursory glance of the new version makes me wonder, what if the
first call to get_node_active_region() ends up with the work_fn never
hitting the if () case ? I think in that case, node_ar->end_pfn never
gets initialized right ? Can that happen in practice ? I suspect that
isn't the case but better safe than sorry...
If there's indeed a potential problem, please send a fixup patch.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jon Tollefson <kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: properly reserve in bootmem the lmb reserved regions that cross NUMA nodes
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:55:16 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1223614516.8157.154.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48EE6720.6010601@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:18 -0500, Jon Tollefson wrote:
> If there are multiple reserved memory blocks via lmb_reserve() that are
> contiguous addresses and on different NUMA nodes we are losing track of which
> address ranges to reserve in bootmem on which node. I discovered this
> when I recently got to try 16GB huge pages on a system with more then 2 nodes.
I'm going to apply it, however, could you double check something for
me ? A cursory glance of the new version makes me wonder, what if the
first call to get_node_active_region() ends up with the work_fn never
hitting the if () case ? I think in that case, node_ar->end_pfn never
gets initialized right ? Can that happen in practice ? I suspect that
isn't the case but better safe than sorry...
If there's indeed a potential problem, please send a fixup patch.
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-10 5:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-09 20:18 [PATCH v3] powerpc: properly reserve in bootmem the lmb reserved regions that cross NUMA nodes Jon Tollefson
2008-10-09 20:18 ` Jon Tollefson
2008-10-10 4:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2008-10-10 4:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-10-10 4:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-10-17 4:59 ` Jon Tollefson
2008-10-17 4:59 ` Jon Tollefson
2008-10-17 4:59 ` Jon Tollefson
2009-02-11 3:17 ` problem with numa reserve bootmem Geoff Levand
2009-02-11 3:55 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-02-12 22:36 ` [patch] powerpc: fix numa reserve bootmem page selection Geoff Levand
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=1223614516.8157.154.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.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.