Hi Simon,
On 02/01/2013 11:06 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
How can distinguish map and use? I mean how can confirm memory is used
by kernel instead of map?
If the page is free, for example, it is in the buddy system, it is not
in use.
Even if it is direct mapped by kernel, the kernel logic should
Hi Tang,
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 10:42 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I confuse!
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 02/01/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> 64TB, what ever
> >> xxxTB, what ever
> >> logic address space:
> >> |_kernel_
Hi Simon,
On 02/01/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
For example:
64TB, what ever
xxxTB, what ever
logic address space: |_kernel___|_user_|
\ \ / /
On 2013/2/1 10:06, Simon Jeons wrote:
> Hi Jianguo,
> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:57 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
>> On 2013/2/1 9:36, Simon Jeons wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
> Hi Tang,
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at
Hi Tang,
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:57 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 09:36 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So if config NUMA, kernel memory will not be linear mapping anymore? For
> >>> example,
> >>>
> >>> Node 0 Node 1
> >>>
> >
Hi Jianguo,
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:57 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2013/2/1 9:36, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> >> On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Tang,
> >>> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Sim
On 2013/2/1 9:36, Simon Jeons wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
>> On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tang,
>>> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> Hi Tang,
> On
On 02/01/2013 09:36 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
So if config NUMA, kernel memory will not be linear mapping anymore? For
example,
Node 0 Node 1
0 ~ 10G 11G~14G
It has nothing to do with linear mapping, I think.
kernel memory only at Node 0
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>> Hi Tang,
> >>> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen
On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
> Hi Tang,
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
>>> Hi Tang,
>>> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. IIUC, there is a button on machine which supports ho
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >
> > 1. IIUC, there is a button on machine which supports hot-remove memory,
> > then what's the differenc
Hi Simon,
On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
1. IIUC, there is a button on machine which supports hot-remove memory,
then what's the difference between press button and echo to /sys?
No important difference, I think. Since I
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
1. IIUC, there is a button on machine which supports hot-remove memory,
then what's the difference between press button and echo to /sys?
2. Since kernel memory is linear mapping(I mean direct mapping part),
why can't put kernel direct m
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 02:19 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:31 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> Please see below. :)
> >>
> >> On 01/31/2013 09:22 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I stil
On 01/31/2013 02:19 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:31 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
Hi Simon,
Please see below. :)
On 01/31/2013 09:22 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Sorry, I still confuse. :(
update node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMORY] to node_states[N_MEMORY] or
node_states[N_NORMAL_ME
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:31 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Please see below. :)
>
> On 01/31/2013 09:22 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I still confuse. :(
> > update node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMORY] to node_states[N_MEMORY] or
> > node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMOR] present 0...ZONE_
Hi Simon,
Please see below. :)
On 01/31/2013 09:22 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Sorry, I still confuse. :(
update node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMORY] to node_states[N_MEMORY] or
node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMOR] present 0...ZONE_MOVABLE?
node_states is what? node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMOR] or
node_states[N_MEMORY]?
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 18:15 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Please see below. :)
>
> On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
> >
> >
On 01/30/2013 06:15 PM, Tang Chen wrote:
Hi Simon,
Please see below. :)
On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
Some questions ask you, not has relationship wi
Hi Simon,
Please see below. :)
On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
Some questions ask you, not has relationship with this patchset, but is
memory hotplug st
On 01/30/2013 10:48 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
Hi Simon,
I'll summarize
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> I'll summarize all the info and answe
On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
Hi Simon,
I'll summarize all the info and answer you later. :)
Thanks for asking. :)
Some questions ask you, not has
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
Some questions ask you, not has relationship with this patchset, but is
memory hotplug stuff.
1. In function node_states_check_changes_online:
comments:
* If we don'
(2013/01/10 17:36), Glauber Costa wrote:
BTW, shrink_slab() is now node/zone aware ? If not, fixing that first will
be better direction I guess.
It is not upstream, but there are patches for this that I am already
using in my private tree.
Oh, I see. If it's merged, it's worth add "shrink_
> If it's configure as ZONE_NORMAL, you need to pray for offlining memory.
>
> AFAIK, IBM's ppc? has 16MB section size. So, some of sections can be
> offlined
> even if they are configured as ZONE_NORMAL. For them, placement of offlined
> memory is not important because it's virtualized by LPAR,
(2013/01/10 16:55), Glauber Costa wrote:
On 01/10/2013 11:31 AM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
(2013/01/10 16:14), Glauber Costa wrote:
On 01/10/2013 06:17 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
Note: if the memory provided by the memory device is used by the
kernel, it
can't be offlined. It is not a bug.
Right.
On 01/10/2013 11:31 AM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2013/01/10 16:14), Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 01/10/2013 06:17 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
> Note: if the memory provided by the memory device is used by the
> kernel, it
> can't be offlined. It is not a bug.
Right. But how often d
(2013/01/10 16:14), Glauber Costa wrote:
On 01/10/2013 06:17 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
Note: if the memory provided by the memory device is used by the
kernel, it
can't be offlined. It is not a bug.
Right. But how often does this happen in testing? In other words,
please provide an overall descri
On 01/10/2013 06:17 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
>>> Note: if the memory provided by the memory device is used by the
>>> kernel, it
>>> can't be offlined. It is not a bug.
>>
>> Right. But how often does this happen in testing? In other words,
>> please provide an overall description of how well memory
Hi Andrew,
On 01/10/2013 07:33 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:32:24 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
This patch-set aims to implement physical memory hot-removing.
As you were on th patch delivery path, all of these patches should have
your Signed-off-by:. But some were missing it.
Hi Andrew,
Thank you very much for your pushing. :)
On 01/10/2013 06:23 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
This does sound like a significant problem. We should assume that
mmecg is available and in use.
In patch1, we provide a solution which is not good enough:
Iterate twice to offline the memory.
1
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:32:24 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
> This patch-set aims to implement physical memory hot-removing.
As you were on th patch delivery path, all of these patches should have
your Signed-off-by:. But some were missing it. I fixed this in my
copy of the patches.
I suspect this pa
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:32:24 +0800
Tang Chen wrote:
> Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
>
> This patch-set aims to implement physical memory hot-removing.
>
> The patches can free/remove the following things:
>
> - /sys/firmware/memmap/X/{end, start, type} : [
Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
This patch-set aims to implement physical memory hot-removing.
The patches can free/remove the following things:
- /sys/firmware/memmap/X/{end, start, type} : [PATCH 4/15]
- memmap of sparse-vmemmap : [PATCH
35 matches
Mail list logo
