On 17. 05. 19, 10:00, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 06:48:37AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 16. 05. 19, 15:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
However, I tend to agree with Michal that (ab)using node[0].memcg_lrus
to check if a list_lru is memcg aware looks confusing. I guess
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 06:48:37AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 16. 05. 19, 15:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> However, I tend to agree with Michal that (ab)using node[0].memcg_lrus
> >> to check if a list_lru is memcg aware looks confusing. I guess we could
> >> simply add a bool flag to list_lru
On 16. 05. 19, 15:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> However, I tend to agree with Michal that (ab)using node[0].memcg_lrus
>> to check if a list_lru is memcg aware looks confusing. I guess we could
>> simply add a bool flag to list_lru instead. Something like this, may be:
>
> Yes, this makes much more
On Thu 09-05-19 15:25:26, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > We have a single node system with node 0 disabled:
> > Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24
> > Number of physical nodes 2
> > Skipping disabled node 0
> > Node 1 MemBase
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:25 AM Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > We have a single node system with node 0 disabled:
> > Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24
> > Number of physical nodes 2
> > Skipping disabled node 0
> > Node 1
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> We have a single node system with node 0 disabled:
> Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24
> Number of physical nodes 2
> Skipping disabled node 0
> Node 1 MemBase Limit fbff
> NODE_DATA(1)
Vladimir,
as you are perhaps the one most familiar with the code, could you take a
look on this?
On 29. 04. 19, 12:59, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> We have a single node system with node 0 disabled:
> Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24
> Number of physical nodes 2
> Skipping disabled node 0
>
On Mon 29-04-19 13:55:26, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 29. 04. 19, 13:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 29-04-19 12:59:39, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > [...]
> >> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> >> {
> >> - /*
> >> - * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> >> -
On 29. 04. 19, 13:55, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Well, I could have used first_node. But I am not sure, if the first
> POSSIBLE node is also ONLINE during boot?
Thinking about it, it does not matter, actually. Both first_node and
first_online are allocated and set up, no matter which one is ONLINE
node.
On 29. 04. 19, 13:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 29-04-19 12:59:39, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> [...]
>> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
>> {
>> -/*
>> - * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
>> - * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
>> -
On Mon 29-04-19 12:59:39, Jiri Slaby wrote:
[...]
> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> - /*
> - * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> - * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
> - */
> - return !!lru->node[0].memcg_lrus;
> +
We have a single node system with node 0 disabled:
Scanning NUMA topology in Northbridge 24
Number of physical nodes 2
Skipping disabled node 0
Node 1 MemBase Limit fbff
NODE_DATA(1) allocated [mem 0xfbfda000-0xfbfe]
This causes crashes in memcg when
12 matches
Mail list logo
