From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e4.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DED9B7115 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:21:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8SI5tZP031671 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:05:55 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o8SILWnd121688 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:21:32 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8SILTWO007632 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:21:32 -0300 Message-ID: <4CA231FA.4070907@austin.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:20:42 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robin Holt Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] v2 Allow memory block to span multiple memory sections References: <4CA0EBEB.1030204@austin.ibm.com> <4CA0EFAA.8050000@austin.ibm.com> <20100928124810.GI14068@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20100928124810.GI14068@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/28/2010 07:48 AM, Robin Holt wrote: >> +u32 __weak memory_block_size_bytes(void) >> +{ >> + return MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; >> +} >> + >> +static u32 get_memory_block_size(void) > > Can we make this an unsigned long? We are testing on a system whose > smallest possible configuration is 4GB per socket with 512 sockets. > We would like to be able to specify this as 2GB by default (results > in the least lost memory) and suggest we add a command line option > which overrides this value. We have many installations where 16GB may > be optimal. Large configurations will certainly become more prevalent. Works for me. > > ... >> @@ -551,12 +608,16 @@ >> unsigned int i; >> int ret; >> int err; >> + int block_sz; > > This one needs to match the return above. In our tests, we ended up > with a negative sections_per_block which caused very unexpected results. Oh, nice catch. I'll update both of these. -Nathan