Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756097AbcJZAtn (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:49:43 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:36022 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754071AbcJZAtk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:49:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:49:29 -0500 From: Reza Arbab To: Balbir Singh Cc: Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Andrew Morton , Bharata B Rao , Nathan Fontenot , Stewart Smith , Alistair Popple , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Tang Chen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mm: make processing of movable_node arch-specific References: <1475778995-1420-1-git-send-email-arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1475778995-1420-5-git-send-email-arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <235f2d20-cf84-08df-1fb4-08ee258fdc52@gmail.com> <20161025155507.37kv5akdlgo6m2be@arbab-laptop.austin.ibm.com> <112504e9-561d-e0da-7a40-73996c678b56@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <112504e9-561d-e0da-7a40-73996c678b56@gmail.com> Organization: IBM Linux Technology Center User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-21) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16102600-0008-0000-0000-000005E68BE2 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00005979; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000188; SDB=6.00772765; UDB=6.00370963; IPR=6.00549591; BA=6.00004832; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00013104; XFM=3.00000011; UTC=2016-10-26 00:49:37 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16102600-0009-0000-0000-00003C72210C Message-Id: <20161026004929.h6v54dhehk4yvmwm@arbab-vm> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-10-25_23:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1610260012 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1234 Lines: 30 On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:34:18AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: >I still believe we need your changes, I was wondering if we've tested >it against normal memory nodes and checked if any memblock >allocations end up there. Michael showed me some memblock >allocations on node 1 of a two node machine with movable_node The movable_node option is x86-only. Both of those nodes contain normal memory, so allocations on both are allowed. >> Longer; if you use "movable_node", x86 can identify these nodes at >> boot. They call memblock_mark_hotplug() while parsing the SRAT. Then, >> when the zones are initialized, those markings are used to determine >> ZONE_MOVABLE. >> >> We have no analog of this SRAT information, so our movable nodes can >> only be created post boot, by hotplugging and explicitly onlining >> with online_movable. > >Is this true for all of system memory as well or only for nodes >hotplugged later? As far as I know, power has nothing like the SRAT that tells us, at boot, which memory is hotpluggable. So there is nothing to wire the movable_node option up to. Of course, any memory you hotplug afterwards is, by definition, hotpluggable. So we can still create movable nodes that way. -- Reza Arbab