On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michael Bringmann <m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > wrote: >> >> On a related note, we are discussing the addition of 2 new device-tree >> properties >> with Pete Heyrman and his fellows that should simplify the determination >> of the >> set of required nodes. >> >> * One property would provide the total/max number of nodes needed by the >> kernel >> on the current hardware. > >
Yes, that would be nice to have > >> >> * A second property would provide the total/max number of nodes that the >> kernel >> could use on any system to which it could be migrated. >> > Not sure about this one, are you suggesting more memory can be added depending on the migration target? > > >> >> These properties aren't available, yet, and it takes time to define new >> properties >> in the PAPR and have them implemented in pHyp and the kernel. As an >> intermediary >> step, the systems which are doing a lot of dynamic hot-add/hot-remove >> configuration >> could provide equivalent information to the PowerPC kernel with a command >> line >> parameter. The 'numa.c' code would then read this value and fill in the >> necessary >> entries in the 'node_possible_map'. >> >> Would you foresee any problems with using such a feature? > > Sorry my mailer goofed up, resending Balbir Singh