On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Surely your computer has some memory so attach it to that memory (which
> > in a NUMA system would be one or the other node).
>
> "attach it". But it _isn't_ attached. There is no memory on this node.
> We seem to be saying that we should misrepres
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:09:40 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > and to
> > > > accurately present the machine's topology to the user without us having
> > > > to
> > > > go adding falsehoods like this?
> > >
> > > a node is a piece of memory. Without memory it does
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > A node which has CPUs and no memory is obviously physically possible and
> > > isn't a completely insane thing for a user to do. I'd have thought that
> > > the kernel should be able to cleanly and clearly handle it,
> >
> > It doesn't.
>
> Fix it?
Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA wrote:[Wed Feb 07 2007, 03:36:47AM EST]
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:04:41 -0800 (PST)
> Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmmm... Remove the node from the node_online_map instead?
> > > >
> > > Changi
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:43:44 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > and to
> > > accurately present the machine's topology to the user without us having to
> > > go adding falsehoods like this?
> >
> > a node is a piece of memory. Without memory it doesn't make sense.
>
> Who said?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:50:55 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > current mempolicy just
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 17:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> > > If there is memory-less-node, mempolic
On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> > If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
> > invalid.
> > This patch adds a check whethe
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > > IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
> > > should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node
> > > instead
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
> > should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node instead.
> > At least x86-64 ensures that.
> >
> AFAIK, ia64 creates nodes just depends on SRAT's possible
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
> should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node instead.
> At least x86-64 ensures that.
Yes I wish we would do it that way on all platforms. SGI's SN2 does that
too
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:32:36 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How for_each_online_node(nid) works ? it can handle alias-nid ?
> >
> > ==
> > for_each_online_node(nid) {
> > pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
> > ==
> > This code never accesses pgdat_for_A twice ?
>
> It wou
> How for_each_online_node(nid) works ? it can handle alias-nid ?
>
> ==
> for_each_online_node(nid) {
> pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
> ==
> This code never accesses pgdat_for_A twice ?
It would. If there's a problem it could be changed to walk the pgdat lists
instead,
but at lea
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:41:25 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 11:37, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:19:02 +0100
> > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You can also alias node numbers to solve this: just point multiple node
> >
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 11:37, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:19:02 +0100
> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > AFAIK, ia64 creates nodes just depends on SRAT's possible resource
> > > information.
> > > Then, ia64 can create cpu-memory-less-node(node with n
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:19:02 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, ia64 creates nodes just depends on SRAT's possible resource
> > information.
> > Then, ia64 can create cpu-memory-less-node(node with no available
> > resource.).
> > (*)I don't like this.
> >
> > If we don't
> AFAIK, ia64 creates nodes just depends on SRAT's possible resource
> information.
> Then, ia64 can create cpu-memory-less-node(node with no available resource.).
> (*)I don't like this.
>
> If we don't allow memory-less-node, we may have to add several codes for
> cpu-hot-add.
> cpus should b
On 07 Feb 2007 11:20:06 +0100
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> > If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
> > invalid.
> > This patch adds a check whethe
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
> If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
> invalid.
> This patch adds a check whether a node has memory or not.
IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The a
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Would it be possible to attach the cpus to the
> next nodes with memory and mark the node offline? That way we could avoid
> another mask that we constantly have to check?
That is what x86-64 does and I believe is the right solution to this.
-A
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > > Hmmm... Remove the node from the node_online_map instead?
> > >
> > Changing defintion of node_online_map is harmfil. (there are
> > cpu-only-nodes.)
> > H
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Hmmm... Remove the node from the node_online_map instead?
> >
> Changing defintion of node_online_map is harmfil. (there are cpu-only-nodes.)
> How about adding nodemask for nodes equips memory ?
Ok that is better but...
Would it be possible to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > This means an access to NULL,here.
> > ==
> > unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *policy)
> > {
> > case MPOL_BIND:
> > /*
> >
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> This means an access to NULL,here.
> ==
> unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *policy)
> {
> case MPOL_BIND:
> /*
> * Follow bind policy behavior and start allocation at the
> * first node.
>
current mempolicy just checks whether a node is online or not.
If there is memory-less-node, mempolicy's target node can be
invalid.
This patch adds a check whether a node has memory or not.
This is an back-trace in which a program uses MPOL_MBIND just includes
memory-less-node.
== backtrace from
25 matches
Mail list logo
