From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (e28smtp05.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957B21400C6 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:42:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:12:33 +0530 Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by d28dlp02.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0833940023 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:12:30 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s377gQ1Z917808 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:12:26 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s377gT1H028029 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:12:29 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Alexander Graf , Liu ping fan , Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powernv: kvm: make _PAGE_NUMA take effect In-Reply-To: <533D47CD.906@suse.com> References: <1390292129-15871-1-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <8761pdk6x5.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <533D47CD.906@suse.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:12:29 +0530 Message-ID: <87bnwdshzu.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-devel , kvm-ppc List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Alexander Graf writes: > On 03.04.14 04:36, Liu ping fan wrote: >> Hi Alex, could you help to pick up this patch? since v3.14 kernel can >> enable numa fault for powerpc. > > What bad happens without this patch? We map a page even though it was > declared to get NUMA migrated? What happens next? Nothing much, we won't be properly accounting the numa access in the host. What we want to achieve is to convert a guest access of the page to a host fault so that we can do proper numa access accounting in the host. This would enable us to migrate the page to the correct numa node. > > I'm trying to figure out whether I need to mark this with a stable tag > for 3.14. > > -aneesh