>> I'd really appreciate if we could instead have something that makes virt
>> happy as well ("makes no sense in any physical system"), because virt is
>> most probably the biggest actual consumer of ACPI memory hotplug out
>> there (!).
>
> No problem with finding such a solution - but it's an
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 12:33:27 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.11.21 11:58, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:23:06 +
> > Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:06:27 +0100
> >> David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 18.11.21 11:28, Jonathan
On 19.11.21 11:58, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:23:06 +
> Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:06:27 +0100
>> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>> On 18.11.21 11:28, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:08:28 +0100
David Hildenbrand
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:23:06 +
Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:06:27 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> > On 18.11.21 11:28, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:08:28 +0100
> > > David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 17.11.21 15:30, Jonathan
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:06:27 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.11.21 11:28, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:08:28 +0100
> > David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> >> On 17.11.21 15:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:11:29 +0100
> >>> David Hildenbrand
On 18.11.21 11:28, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:08:28 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 17.11.21 15:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:11:29 +0100
>>> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Examples include exposing HBM or PMEM to the VM.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:08:28 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 17.11.21 15:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:11:29 +0100
> > David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
>
> Examples include exposing HBM or PMEM to the VM. Just like on real HW,
> this memory is exposed
On 12.11.21 14:27, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:01:11 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 10.11.21 11:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:47:37 +1100
>>> Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>
Hi Drew and Igor,
On 11/2/21 6:39 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On 17.11.21 15:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:11:29 +0100
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
Examples include exposing HBM or PMEM to the VM. Just like on real HW,
this memory is exposed via cpu-less, special nodes. In contrast to real
HW, the memory is
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:11:29 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >> Examples include exposing HBM or PMEM to the VM. Just like on real HW,
> >> this memory is exposed via cpu-less, special nodes. In contrast to real
> >> HW, the memory is hotplugged later (I don't think HW supports hotplug
>
>>
>> Examples include exposing HBM or PMEM to the VM. Just like on real HW,
>> this memory is exposed via cpu-less, special nodes. In contrast to real
>> HW, the memory is hotplugged later (I don't think HW supports hotplug
>> like that yet, but it might just be a matter of time).
>
> I suppose
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:01:11 +0100
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.11.21 11:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:47:37 +1100
> > Gavin Shan wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Drew and Igor,
> >>
> >> On 11/2/21 6:39 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 10:44:08AM +1100,
On 10.11.21 11:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:47:37 +1100
> Gavin Shan wrote:
>
>> Hi Drew and Igor,
>>
>> On 11/2/21 6:39 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 10:44:08AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
Yeah, I agree. I don't have strong sense to expose
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 23:47:37 +1100
Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Drew and Igor,
>
> On 11/2/21 6:39 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 10:44:08AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, I agree. I don't have strong sense to expose these empty nodes
> >> for now. Please ignore the
Hi Drew and Igor,
On 11/2/21 6:39 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 10:44:08AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
Yeah, I agree. I don't have strong sense to expose these empty nodes
for now. Please ignore the patch.
So were describing empty numa nodes on the command line ever a
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 10:44:08AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree. I don't have strong sense to expose these empty nodes
> for now. Please ignore the patch.
>
So were describing empty numa nodes on the command line ever a reasonable
thing to do? What happens on x86 machine types when
On 11/1/21 7:44 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:32:09 +1100
Gavin Shan wrote:
On 10/28/21 2:40 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:29:58 +0800
Gavin Shan wrote:
The empty NUMA nodes, where no memory resides, aren't exposed
through ACPI SRAT table. It's not
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:32:09 +1100
Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 10/28/21 2:40 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:29:58 +0800
> > Gavin Shan wrote:
> >
> >> The empty NUMA nodes, where no memory resides, aren't exposed
> >> through ACPI SRAT table. It's not user preferred behaviour
On 10/28/21 2:40 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:29:58 +0800
Gavin Shan wrote:
The empty NUMA nodes, where no memory resides, aren't exposed
through ACPI SRAT table. It's not user preferred behaviour because
the corresponding memory node devices are missed from the guest
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:29:58 +0800
Gavin Shan wrote:
> The empty NUMA nodes, where no memory resides, aren't exposed
> through ACPI SRAT table. It's not user preferred behaviour because
> the corresponding memory node devices are missed from the guest
> kernel as the following example shows. It
The empty NUMA nodes, where no memory resides, aren't exposed
through ACPI SRAT table. It's not user preferred behaviour because
the corresponding memory node devices are missed from the guest
kernel as the following example shows. It means the guest kernel
doesn't have the node information as
21 matches
Mail list logo
