From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE_DATA to generic code
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:34:54 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZpqHniqaMxj-iDfw@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96850252-a49f-4d78-a94b-a9a25e3f2bd5@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 05:07:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > - * Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node.
> > > > - * Never allocate in DMA zone.
> > > > - */
> > > > - nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
> > > > - if (!nd_pa) {
> > > > - pr_err("Cannot find %zu bytes in any node (initial node: %d)\n",
> > > > - nd_size, nid);
> > > > - return;
> > > > - }
> > > > - nd = __va(nd_pa);
> > > > -
> > > > - /* report and initialize */
> > > > - printk(KERN_INFO "NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
> > > > - nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
> > > > - tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > > - if (tnid != nid)
> > > > - printk(KERN_INFO " NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
> > > > -
> > > > - node_data[nid] = nd;
> > > > - memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
> > > > -
> > > > - node_set_online(nid);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > /**
> > > > * numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
> > > > * @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
> > > > @@ -571,6 +538,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > > continue;
> > > > alloc_node_data(nid);
> > > > + node_set_online(nid);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I can spot that we only remove a single node_set_online() call from x86.
> > >
> > > What about all the other architectures? Will there be any change in behavior
> > > for them? Or do we simply set the nodes online later once more?
> >
> > On x86 node_set_online() was a part of alloc_node_data() and I moved it
> > outside so it's called right after alloc_node_data(). On other
> > architectures the allocation didn't include that call, so there should be
> > no difference there.
>
> But won't their arch code try setting the nodes online at a later stage?
>
> And I think, some architectures only set nodes online conditionally
> (see most other node_set_online() calls).
>
> Sorry if I'm confused here, but with now unconditional node_set_online(), won't
> we change the behavior of other architectures?
The generic alloc_node_data() does not set the node online:
+/* Allocate NODE_DATA for a node on the local memory */
+void __init alloc_node_data(int nid)
+{
+ const size_t nd_size = roundup(sizeof(pg_data_t), PAGE_SIZE);
+ u64 nd_pa;
+ void *nd;
+ int tnid;
+
+ /* Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node. */
+ nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+ if (!nd_pa)
+ panic("Cannot allocate %zu bytes for node %d data\n",
+ nd_size, nid);
+ nd = __va(nd_pa);
+
+ /* report and initialize */
+ pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
+ nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
+ tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+ if (tnid != nid)
+ pr_info(" NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+
+ node_data[nid] = nd;
+ memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
+}
I might have missed some architecture except x86 that calls
node_set_online() in its alloc_node_data(), but the intention was to leave
that call outside the alloc and explicitly add it after the call to
alloc_node_data() if needed like in x86.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE_DATA to generic code
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:34:54 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZpqHniqaMxj-iDfw@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96850252-a49f-4d78-a94b-a9a25e3f2bd5@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 05:07:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > - * Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node.
> > > > - * Never allocate in DMA zone.
> > > > - */
> > > > - nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
> > > > - if (!nd_pa) {
> > > > - pr_err("Cannot find %zu bytes in any node (initial node: %d)\n",
> > > > - nd_size, nid);
> > > > - return;
> > > > - }
> > > > - nd = __va(nd_pa);
> > > > -
> > > > - /* report and initialize */
> > > > - printk(KERN_INFO "NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
> > > > - nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
> > > > - tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > > - if (tnid != nid)
> > > > - printk(KERN_INFO " NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
> > > > -
> > > > - node_data[nid] = nd;
> > > > - memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
> > > > -
> > > > - node_set_online(nid);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > /**
> > > > * numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
> > > > * @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
> > > > @@ -571,6 +538,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > > continue;
> > > > alloc_node_data(nid);
> > > > + node_set_online(nid);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I can spot that we only remove a single node_set_online() call from x86.
> > >
> > > What about all the other architectures? Will there be any change in behavior
> > > for them? Or do we simply set the nodes online later once more?
> >
> > On x86 node_set_online() was a part of alloc_node_data() and I moved it
> > outside so it's called right after alloc_node_data(). On other
> > architectures the allocation didn't include that call, so there should be
> > no difference there.
>
> But won't their arch code try setting the nodes online at a later stage?
>
> And I think, some architectures only set nodes online conditionally
> (see most other node_set_online() calls).
>
> Sorry if I'm confused here, but with now unconditional node_set_online(), won't
> we change the behavior of other architectures?
The generic alloc_node_data() does not set the node online:
+/* Allocate NODE_DATA for a node on the local memory */
+void __init alloc_node_data(int nid)
+{
+ const size_t nd_size = roundup(sizeof(pg_data_t), PAGE_SIZE);
+ u64 nd_pa;
+ void *nd;
+ int tnid;
+
+ /* Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node. */
+ nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+ if (!nd_pa)
+ panic("Cannot allocate %zu bytes for node %d data\n",
+ nd_size, nid);
+ nd = __va(nd_pa);
+
+ /* report and initialize */
+ pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
+ nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
+ tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+ if (tnid != nid)
+ pr_info(" NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+
+ node_data[nid] = nd;
+ memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
+}
I might have missed some architecture except x86 that calls
node_set_online() in its alloc_node_data(), but the intention was to leave
that call outside the alloc and explicitly add it after the call to
alloc_node_data() if needed like in x86.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE_DATA to generic code
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:34:54 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZpqHniqaMxj-iDfw@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96850252-a49f-4d78-a94b-a9a25e3f2bd5@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 05:07:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > - * Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node.
> > > > - * Never allocate in DMA zone.
> > > > - */
> > > > - nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
> > > > - if (!nd_pa) {
> > > > - pr_err("Cannot find %zu bytes in any node (initial node: %d)\n",
> > > > - nd_size, nid);
> > > > - return;
> > > > - }
> > > > - nd = __va(nd_pa);
> > > > -
> > > > - /* report and initialize */
> > > > - printk(KERN_INFO "NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
> > > > - nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
> > > > - tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > > - if (tnid != nid)
> > > > - printk(KERN_INFO " NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
> > > > -
> > > > - node_data[nid] = nd;
> > > > - memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
> > > > -
> > > > - node_set_online(nid);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > /**
> > > > * numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
> > > > * @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
> > > > @@ -571,6 +538,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > > continue;
> > > > alloc_node_data(nid);
> > > > + node_set_online(nid);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I can spot that we only remove a single node_set_online() call from x86.
> > >
> > > What about all the other architectures? Will there be any change in behavior
> > > for them? Or do we simply set the nodes online later once more?
> >
> > On x86 node_set_online() was a part of alloc_node_data() and I moved it
> > outside so it's called right after alloc_node_data(). On other
> > architectures the allocation didn't include that call, so there should be
> > no difference there.
>
> But won't their arch code try setting the nodes online at a later stage?
>
> And I think, some architectures only set nodes online conditionally
> (see most other node_set_online() calls).
>
> Sorry if I'm confused here, but with now unconditional node_set_online(), won't
> we change the behavior of other architectures?
The generic alloc_node_data() does not set the node online:
+/* Allocate NODE_DATA for a node on the local memory */
+void __init alloc_node_data(int nid)
+{
+ const size_t nd_size = roundup(sizeof(pg_data_t), PAGE_SIZE);
+ u64 nd_pa;
+ void *nd;
+ int tnid;
+
+ /* Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node. */
+ nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+ if (!nd_pa)
+ panic("Cannot allocate %zu bytes for node %d data\n",
+ nd_size, nid);
+ nd = __va(nd_pa);
+
+ /* report and initialize */
+ pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
+ nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
+ tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+ if (tnid != nid)
+ pr_info(" NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+
+ node_data[nid] = nd;
+ memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
+}
I might have missed some architecture except x86 that calls
node_set_online() in its alloc_node_data(), but the intention was to leave
that call outside the alloc and explicitly add it after the call to
alloc_node_data() if needed like in x86.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-19 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 180+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-16 11:13 [PATCH 00/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 01/17] mm: move kernel/numa.c to mm/ Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 13:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 13:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 13:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 02/17] MIPS: sgi-ip27: make NODE_DATA() the same as on all other architectures Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 14:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 14:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 14:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 7:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 7:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 7:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 03/17] MIPS: loongson64: rename __node_data to node_data Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 13:07 ` Jiaxun Yang
2024-07-16 13:07 ` Jiaxun Yang
2024-07-16 13:07 ` Jiaxun Yang
2024-07-17 14:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 15:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 15:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 04/17] arch, mm: move definition of node_data to generic code Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 15:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 15:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-23 0:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-23 0:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-23 0:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE_DATA " Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-17 14:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-18 7:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-18 7:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-18 7:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 15:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:34 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2024-07-19 15:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 15:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 15:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 15:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 15:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 16:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 16:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-20 10:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 10:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 10:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 06/17] x86/numa: simplify numa_distance allocation Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 07/17] x86/numa: move FAKE_NODE_* defines to numa_emu Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 08/17] x86/numa_emu: simplify allocation of phys_dist Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 09/17] x86/numa_emu: split __apicid_to_node update to a helper function Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:47 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:47 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:47 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 10/17] x86/numa_emu: use a helper function to get MAX_DMA32_PFN Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 11/17] x86/numa: numa_{add,remove}_cpu: make cpu parameter unsigned Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 12/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 8:03 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:03 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:03 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 13/17] mm: move numa_distance and related code from x86 to numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-18 21:46 ` Samuel Holland
2024-07-18 21:46 ` Samuel Holland
2024-07-18 21:46 ` Samuel Holland
2024-07-19 5:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 5:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 5:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 17:48 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 17:48 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 17:48 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-20 12:25 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 12:25 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 12:25 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 14/17] mm: introduce numa_emulation Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:03 ` Zi Yan
2024-07-19 16:03 ` Zi Yan
2024-07-19 16:03 ` Zi Yan
2024-07-20 12:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 12:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 12:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 15/17] mm: make numa_memblks more self-contained Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:07 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:07 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:07 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-20 12:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 12:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-20 12:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:05 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:05 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:05 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 16/17] arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 17/17] mm: make range-to-target_node lookup facility a part of numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 18:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 13:33 ` [PATCH 00/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 13:33 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 13:33 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 8:08 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:08 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:08 ` Mike Rapoport
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=ZpqHniqaMxj-iDfw@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreas@gaisler.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nvdimm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.