From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754080Ab2LMPRu (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:50 -0500 Received: from mail-vb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:61123 "EHLO mail-vb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753028Ab2LMPRt (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:49 -0500 Message-ID: <50C9F19D.8060209@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:17:49 -0500 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: Davidlohr Bueso , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add node physical memory range to sysfs References: <1354919696.2523.6.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20121207155125.d3117244.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <50C28720.3070205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1355361524.5255.9.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <50C933E9.2040707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1355364222.9244.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <50C95E4A.9010509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <50C95E4A.9010509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (12/12/12 11:49 PM), Dave Hansen wrote: > On 12/12/2012 06:03 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:48 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> But if we went and did it per-DIMM (showing which physical addresses and >>> NUMA nodes a DIMM maps to), wouldn't that be redundant with this >>> proposed interface? >> >> If DIMMs overlap between nodes, then we wouldn't have an exact range for >> a node in question. Having both approaches would complement each other. > > How is that possible? If NUMA nodes are defined by distances from CPUs > to memory, how could a DIMM have more than a single distance to any > given CPU? numa_emulation? just guess.