Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Replace _PAGE_NUMA with PAGE_NONE protections

[Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:26:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> writes:
> 
> > On 11/18/2014 10:42 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> 1. I'm assuming this is a KVM setup but can you confirm?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> 2. Are you using numa=fake=N?
> >
> > Yes. numa=fake=24, which is probably way more nodes on any physical machine
> > than the new code was tested on?
> >
> >> 3. If you are using fake NUMA, what happens if you boot without it as
> >>    that should make the patches a no-op?
> >
> > Nope, still seeing it without fake numa.
> >
> >> 4. Similarly, does the kernel boot properly without without patches?
> >
> > Yes, the kernel works fine without the patches both with and without fake
> > numa.
> 
> 
> Hmm that is interesting. I am not sure how writeback_fid can be
> related. We use writeback fid to enable client side caching with 9p
> (cache=loose). We use this fid to write back dirty pages later. Can you
> share the qemu command line used, 9p mount options and the test details ? 
> 

It would help if the test details included the kernel config. I got KVM
working again on an server with an older installation and while it
doesn't use 9p, I'm not seeing any other oddities either yet while
running trinity.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
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>