Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-26 Thread Reza Arbab
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:52:53PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: As far as I know, power has nothing like the SRAT that tells us, at boot, which memory is hotpluggable. On pseries we have the ibm,dynamic-memory device tree property, which can contain ranges of memory that are not yet

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-26 Thread Michael Ellerman
Reza Arbab writes: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:34:18AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: >>I still believe we need your changes, I was wondering if we've tested >>it against normal memory nodes and checked if any memblock >>allocations end up there. Michael showed me some

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-25 Thread Reza Arbab
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:34:18AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: I still believe we need your changes, I was wondering if we've tested it against normal memory nodes and checked if any memblock allocations end up there. Michael showed me some memblock allocations on node 1 of a two node machine

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-25 Thread Balbir Singh
On 26/10/16 02:55, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:15:40PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: >> After the ack, I realized there were some more checks needed, IOW >> questions for you :) > > Hey! No takebacks! > I still believe we need your changes, I was wondering if we've tested it

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-25 Thread Balbir Singh
On 26/10/16 02:55, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:15:40PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: >> After the ack, I realized there were some more checks needed, IOW >> questions for you :) > > Hey! No takebacks! > I still believe we need your changes, I was wondering if we've tested it

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-25 Thread Reza Arbab
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:15:40PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: After the ack, I realized there were some more checks needed, IOW questions for you :) Hey! No takebacks! The short answer is that neither of these is a concern. Longer; if you use "movable_node", x86 can identify these nodes at

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-25 Thread Balbir Singh
On 11/10/16 23:26, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > On 07/10/16 05:36, Reza Arbab wrote: >> Currently, CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE depends on X86_64. In preparation to >> enable it for other arches, we need to factor a detail which is unique >> to x86 out of the generic mm code. >> >> Specifically, as

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-11 Thread Balbir Singh
On 07/10/16 05:36, Reza Arbab wrote: > Currently, CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE depends on X86_64. In preparation to > enable it for other arches, we need to factor a detail which is unique > to x86 out of the generic mm code. > > Specifically, as documented in kernel-parameters.txt, the use of >

Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-07 Thread Aneesh Kumar K.V
Reza Arbab writes: > Currently, CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE depends on X86_64. In preparation to > enable it for other arches, we need to factor a detail which is unique > to x86 out of the generic mm code. > > Specifically, as documented in kernel-parameters.txt, the use of >

[PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific

2016-10-06 Thread Reza Arbab
Currently, CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE depends on X86_64. In preparation to enable it for other arches, we need to factor a detail which is unique to x86 out of the generic mm code. Specifically, as documented in kernel-parameters.txt, the use of "movable_node" should remain restricted to x86: