From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753591AbYAWK2p (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:28:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751907AbYAWK2h (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:28:37 -0500 Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:38492 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751775AbYAWK2g (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:28:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:28:34 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Andi Kleen Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apw@shadowen.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Relax restrictions on setting CONFIG_NUMA on x86 Message-ID: <20080123102834.GC21455@csn.ul.ie> References: <20080118153529.12646.5260.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <20080119160743.GA8352@csn.ul.ie> <200801221433.29771.andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801221433.29771.andi@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (22/01/08 14:33), Andi Kleen didst pronounce: > > > Without SRAT support, a compile-error occurs because ACPI table parsing > > functions are only available in x86-64. This patch also adds no-op stubs > > and prints a warning message. What likely needs to be done is sharing > > the table parsing functions between 32 and 64 bit if they are > > compatible. > > I'm a little confused by your patch. > > i386 already has srat parsing code (just written in a horrible hackish way); > but it exists arch/x86/kernel/srat_32.c > Yes, I spotted that. Enabling it required a Kconfig change or two and enabling BOOT_IOREMAP. It then crashes early in boot on a call to strlen() so I went with the stubs and SRAT disabled for the moment. > That one tended to explode on Opteron, but apparently worked on some > Summit boxes. > > You're saying you want to remove that code and replace it based on something > based on the drivers/acpi/numa.c parsing code? I made the assumption that they were basically the same. That is obviously wrong from what you say below. > While that's in theory > a worthy goal it will not actually help all that much because numa.c only > does some high level parsing, but nothing of the actual low level work > of setting things up. > Ok, understood. When I next revisit this, I'll look at making ACPI_SRAT and BOOT_IOREMAP work on normal machines and see what happens. Thanks. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab