From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E15C43331 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A38206E6 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="tu1U3Lgf"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="IIzrUg8j" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 39A38206E6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=4aXytUPhVbQTGNViZQ8N4brdn+WU8vqTokx86CqdKZI=; b=tu1U3LgfZDpwav /3RPf6T1biF8j2skd/LJoGhg3b6uejw/wSOANWumgoWLejnqbwPA9MBwFjMGgyEfRgYPlvOIqwE6x VgQNl77QfDai2Lus//TMmuBx/bBdui5ALJV0Pt3p0snPzRCRXueUX4IgJTd6w9I1igy+K+GtsmNQu vi1WCXTaSUiI/dl193SYpS7+yK5bK/iHq5AauYLTmRYmyWx5cLQ9pgIag12CtpPaEW6rh/b5sehIw /LsPqRt0YWAQTfj1Ibn2Um+x1nELDuUW+RVoAvzvIUkaYJhWr2j8f2C1Qbk6VUluZX3VM+VKE/ev7 /XcUzMLOtmhU3zyzUvBQ==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jIpQ4-0000Xv-33; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:16 +0000 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.74]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jIpQ0-0000Tm-JQ for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:14 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1585555509; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nVwRo6XO9WRKmSULb4OWrX5slFKDiMD/LCNJjQ0boIs=; b=IIzrUg8jPgrmEVQPxsZ35B7nHXAckKB4sQbtembRyfrd9dS+PE4dbkMsnv8lzdGV/uAXgF hBnc/TLm1PKNWueF9CWHY+BisQlmhKhDBbH1nYsyV1t2P1SBP+PF4N6Vq3Mg2y21nb6mgP mK1NpybUWmUdLBJJ0505XPT8Ofvp/rU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-468-l4TLxabQO2KtEB9hP7eswA-1; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 04:05:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: l4TLxabQO2KtEB9hP7eswA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F135A801E5C; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-53.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.53]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27E25953DB; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:04:56 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA Message-ID: <20200330080456.GJ9942@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com> <20200329001924.GS3039@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20200330074426.GB14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200330074426.GB14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200330_010512_720788_624B1E53 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.27 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: mmorana@amperecomputing.com, Catalin Marinas , Heiko Carstens , "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" , Paul Mackerras , "H. Peter Anvin" , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman , x86@kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Christian Borntraeger , Ingo Molnar , Hoan Tran , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Pavel Tatashin , lho@amperecomputing.com, Vasily Gorbik , Vlastimil Babka , Will Deacon , Borislav Petkov , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Oscar Salvador , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 03/30/20 at 09:44am, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sun 29-03-20 08:19:24, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 03/28/20 at 11:31am, Hoan Tran wrote: > > > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes, > > > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly. > > > > > > For example, with layout below > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111 > > > > Sorry, I read this example several times, but still don't get what it > > means. Can it be given with real hex number address as an exmaple? I > > mean just using the memory layout you have seen from some systems. The > > change looks interesting though. > > Does this make it more clear? > physical address range and its node associaion > [0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1] I later read it again, have got what Hoan is trying to say, thanks. I think the change in this patchset makes sense, still have some concern though, let me add comment in other thread. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel