From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, anton@samba.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Node 0 not necessary for powerpc?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:40:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140619174047.GV16644@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140619145950.GG26904@htj.dyndns.org>
On 19.06.2014 [10:59:50 -0400], Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:31:57PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > I think what this really wants to do is NODE_DATA(cpu_to_mem(cpu)) and I
> > > thought ppc had the cpu-to-local-memory-node mappings correct?
> >
> > Except cpu_to_mem relies on the mapping being defined, but early in
> > boot, specifically, it isn't yet (at least not necessarily).
>
> Can't ppc NODE_DATA simply return dummy generic node_data during early
> boot? Populating it with just enough to make early boot work
> shouldn't be too hard, right?
So the problem is this, whether we use cpu_to_mem() or cpu_to_node()
here, neither is setup yet because of the ordering between percpu setup
and the actual writing of the percpu data (that is actually storing what
node/local memory is relative to a given CPU).
The NODE_DATA is all correct, but since we are calling cpu_to_{mem,node}
before it really holds valid data, it falsely says 0, which is not
necessarily even an online node.
So, I think we need to do the same thing as x86 and have an early
mapping setup and configured before the percpu areas are.
Thanks,
Nish
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
anton@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, tony.luck@intel.com
Subject: Re: Node 0 not necessary for powerpc?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:40:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140619174047.GV16644@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140619145950.GG26904@htj.dyndns.org>
On 19.06.2014 [10:59:50 -0400], Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:31:57PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > I think what this really wants to do is NODE_DATA(cpu_to_mem(cpu)) and I
> > > thought ppc had the cpu-to-local-memory-node mappings correct?
> >
> > Except cpu_to_mem relies on the mapping being defined, but early in
> > boot, specifically, it isn't yet (at least not necessarily).
>
> Can't ppc NODE_DATA simply return dummy generic node_data during early
> boot? Populating it with just enough to make early boot work
> shouldn't be too hard, right?
So the problem is this, whether we use cpu_to_mem() or cpu_to_node()
here, neither is setup yet because of the ordering between percpu setup
and the actual writing of the percpu data (that is actually storing what
node/local memory is relative to a given CPU).
The NODE_DATA is all correct, but since we are calling cpu_to_{mem,node}
before it really holds valid data, it falsely says 0, which is not
necessarily even an online node.
So, I think we need to do the same thing as x86 and have an early
mapping setup and configured before the percpu areas are.
Thanks,
Nish
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-19 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-11 19:56 Node 0 not necessary for powerpc? Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-11 19:56 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-12 2:02 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-12 2:02 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-13 16:48 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-13 16:48 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-12 13:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-03-12 13:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-03-13 16:49 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-13 16:49 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-19 18:24 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-19 18:24 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-21 14:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-05-21 14:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-05-21 18:58 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-21 18:58 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-21 19:57 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-21 19:57 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-09 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2014-06-09 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2014-06-10 23:31 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-10 23:31 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 14:59 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-19 14:59 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-19 17:40 ` Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
2014-06-19 17:40 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 17:14 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 17:14 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140619174047.GV16644@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.