* Michal Hocko [2020-08-18 09:37:12]:
> On Tue 18-08-20 09:32:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew, Michal, David
> > >
> > > * Andrew Morton [2020-08-06 21:32:11]:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
> > >>
On Tue 18-08-20 09:32:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Hi Andrew, Michal, David
> >
> > * Andrew Morton [2020-08-06 21:32:11]:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
> >> wrote:
> >>
> The memory hotplug changes that
On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Hi Andrew, Michal, David
>
> * Andrew Morton [2020-08-06 21:32:11]:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
>> wrote:
>>
The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa
nodes and therefore make the
Hi Andrew, Michal, David
* Andrew Morton [2020-08-06 21:32:11]:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
> wrote:
>
> > > The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa
> > > nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common
> > >
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:58:09AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.08.20 06:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa
> >>> nodes and therefore make the
On 07.08.20 06:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
> wrote:
>
>>> The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa
>>> nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common
>>> case. I am not sure what would happen
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju
wrote:
> > The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa
> > nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common
> > case. I am not sure what would happen if a completely new node was added
> > and
> > What's the point of this indirection other than another way of avoiding
> > empty node 0?
>
> Honestly, I do not have any idea. I've traced it down to
> Author: Andi Kleen
> Date: Tue Jan 11 15:35:48 2005 -0800
I don't remember all the details, and I can't even find the commit
(is it in
* Michal Hocko [2020-07-03 12:59:44]:
> > Honestly, I do not have any idea. I've traced it down to
> > Author: Andi Kleen
> > Date: Tue Jan 11 15:35:48 2005 -0800
> >
> > [PATCH] x86_64: Fix ACPI SRAT NUMA parsing
> >
> > Fix fallout from the recent nodemask_t changes. The node ids
On Fri 03-07-20 13:32:21, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.07.20 12:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 03-07-20 11:24:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> [Cc Andi]
> >>
> >> On Fri 03-07-20 11:10:01, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed
On 03.07.20 12:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-07-20 11:24:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> [Cc Andi]
>>
>> On Fri 03-07-20 11:10:01, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> [...]
> Yep,
On Fri 03-07-20 11:24:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Cc Andi]
>
> On Fri 03-07-20 11:10:01, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Yep, looks like it.
> > > >
> > > > [
[Cc Andi]
On Fri 03-07-20 11:10:01, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> > > Yep, looks like it.
> > >
> > > [0.009726] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x00 -> Node 0
> > > [0.009727]
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 01.07.20 13:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 01.07.20 13:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > >> * David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:
> > >>
> > >>> On 01.07.20 12:04,
* Michal Hocko [2020-07-02 10:41:23]:
> On Thu 02-07-20 12:14:08, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 14:21:10]:
> >
> > > > > The autonuma problem sounds interesting but again this patch
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > really solve the underlying problem because I
On Thu 02-07-20 12:14:08, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 14:21:10]:
>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent
> > > >> information. The
> > > >> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
> > >
* Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 14:21:10]:
> > >>
> > >> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent
> > >> information. The
> > >> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
> > >> device-tree and resource-dump
> > >>
> > >> 3. When
On Tue 30-06-20 09:31:25, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Christopher Lameter [2020-06-29 14:58:40]:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > > Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> > > possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot. However in
On Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.07.20 13:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 01.07.20 13:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> * David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:
> >>
> >>> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
>
On 01.07.20 13:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.07.20 13:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> * David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:
>>
>>> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
>
>>
>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also
On 01.07.20 13:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:
>
>> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>>> * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
>>>
>
> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information.
> The
>
* David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:
> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information.
> >>> The
> >>> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the
On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The
>>> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
>>> device-tree and resource-dump
>>>
>>> 3. When
* Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
>
> >
> > 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The
> > number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
> > device-tree and resource-dump
> >
> > 3. When the dummy node is present, single node non-Numa
On Wed 24-06-20 14:58:46, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot. However in practice,
> there are systems which have node 0 as memoryless and cpuless.
>
> This can cause numa_balancing to be
* Christopher Lameter [2020-06-29 14:58:40]:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> > possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot. However in practice,
> > there are systems which have node 0 as memoryless
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot. However in practice,
> there are systems which have node 0 as memoryless and cpuless.
Maybe add something to explain why you are
27 matches
Mail list logo
