From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>,
rob@landley.net, tglx@linutronix.de,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bhelgaas@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: add max_addr boot option
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:21:43 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FD7F937.2010101@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d468fc51-04f6-4e88-aeaa-c4642531325e@email.android.com>
(2012/06/13 1:10), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> If what you care about is nodes, why not have an option to specify a map?
>
At the first time of our project, we discussed passing node-id as boot option.
But, we found Node-ID is just determined by the pxm ID order in SRAT. That means,
we and our firmware team need to take care of the order of SRAT. But that node-ID
v.s. SRAT relationship is just determined by implemenation, there is no spec,
we thought we can't keep this way in future.
The second thought was specifying PXM. But, with hardware-partitioning-system,
dynamic implementation of SRAT for a partutuion is very confusing...
Then, alternative idea was using mem= boot option. Because our partition system
has fixed address range per each node, it works well.
But now, we know mem= boot option is buggy....it acts as max_addr= option, we
have concerns that 'someone may fix mem= option as sane as ia64. because it's buggy".
We'd like to fix mem= boot option by ourselves and preserve old behavior with max_addr=
boot option, which ia64 has.
Thanks,
-Kame
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-13 2:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-11 8:44 [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: add max_addr boot option Wen Congyang
2012-06-11 8:46 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] x86: reimplement mem " Wen Congyang
2012-06-11 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: add max_addr " Bjorn Helgaas
2012-06-12 6:29 ` Wen Congyang
2012-06-12 11:30 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-06-13 1:55 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-13 4:59 ` Rob Landley
2012-06-14 2:06 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-14 20:00 ` Rob Landley
2012-06-11 21:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-12 6:26 ` Wen Congyang
2012-06-12 16:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-13 2:21 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki [this message]
2012-06-13 3:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-13 5:20 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-13 5:36 ` Wen Congyang
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=4FD7F937.2010101@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rob@landley.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wency@cn.fujitsu.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox