From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f70.google.com (mail-pa0-f70.google.com [209.85.220.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5792E6B0287 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:00:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id fn5so8065459pab.3 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x22f.google.com (mail-pf0-x22f.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z82si23129275pff.218.2016.10.25.16.00.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id s8so126903898pfj.2 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific References: <1475778995-1420-1-git-send-email-arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1475778995-1420-5-git-send-email-arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <235f2d20-cf84-08df-1fb4-08ee258fdc52@gmail.com> <20161025155507.37kv5akdlgo6m2be@arbab-laptop.austin.ibm.com> From: Balbir Singh Message-ID: <13f4f7fa-77b7-0924-f47c-5e55af8269d0@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:59:40 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161025155507.37kv5akdlgo6m2be@arbab-laptop.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Reza Arbab Cc: Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Andrew Morton , Bharata B Rao , Nathan Fontenot , Stewart Smith , Alistair Popple , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Tang Chen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 26/10/16 02:55, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:15:40PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: >> After the ack, I realized there were some more checks needed, IOW >> questions for you :) > > Hey! No takebacks! > I still believe we need your changes, I was wondering if we've tested it against normal memory nodes and checked if any memblock allocations end up there. Michael showed me some memblock allocations on node 1 of a two node machine with movable_node I'll double check at my end. See my question below > The short answer is that neither of these is a concern. > > Longer; if you use "movable_node", x86 can identify these nodes at boot. They call memblock_mark_hotplug() while parsing the SRAT. Then, when the zones are initialized, those markings are used to determine ZONE_MOVABLE. > > We have no analog of this SRAT information, so our movable nodes can only be created post boot, by hotplugging and explicitly onlining with online_movable. > Is this true for all of system memory as well or only for nodes hotplugged later? Balbir Singh. -- 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: email@kvack.org