From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423673Ab3FUSoY (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:44:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:58242 "EHLO mail-ie0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423388Ab3FUSoX (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:44:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51C48745.9030304@zytor.com> References: <1371831934-156971-1-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com> <20130621165142.GA32125@kroah.com> <51C48745.9030304@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:22 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: I1y_2-k25Y5ZFBq8QqC8NcrC59M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Delay initializing of large sections of memory From: Yinghai Lu To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Greg KH , Nathan Zimmer , Robin Holt , Mike Travis , Rob Landley , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/21/2013 09:51 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > I suspect the cutoff for this should be a lot lower than 8 TB even, more > like 128 GB or so. The only concern is to not set the cutoff so low > that we can end up running out of memory or with suboptimal NUMA > placement just because of this. I would suggest another way: only boot the system with boot node (include cpu, ram and pci root buses). then after boot, could add other nodes. or something like pxm_mask or node_mask to select boot nodes. Thanks Yinghai