Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>]

2013/02/27 13:04, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> 2013/02/27 11:30, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Do you mean you can not boot one socket system with 1G ram ?
>>> Assume socket 0 does not support hotplug, other 31 sockets support hot
>>> plug.
>>>
>>> So we could boot system only with socket0, and later one by one hot
>>> add other cpus.
>>
>>
>> In this case, system can boot. But other cpus with bunch of ram hot
>> plug may fails, since system does not have enough memory for cover
>> hot added memory. When hot adding memory device, kernel object for the
>> memory is allocated from 1G ram since hot added memory has not been
>> enabled.
>>
>
> yes, it may fail, if the one node memory need page table and vmemmap
> is more than 1g ...
>

> for hot add memory we need to
> 1. add another wrapper for init_memory_mapping, just like
> init_mem_mapping() for booting path.
> 2. we need make memblock more generic, so we can use it with hot add
> memory during runtime.
> 3. with that we can initialize page table for hot added node with ram.
> a. initial page table for 2M near node top is from node0 ( that does
> not support hot plug).
> b. then will use 2M for memory below node top...
> c. with that we will make sure page table stay on local node.
>   alloc_low_pages need to be updated to support that.
> 4. need to make sure vmemmap on local node too.

I think so too. By this, memory hot plug becomes more useful.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

>
> so hot-remove node will work too later.
>
> In the long run, we should make booting path and hot adding more
> similar and share at most code.
> That will make code get more test coverage.
>
> Thanks
>
> Yinghai
>