Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261852AbUCQSOm (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:14:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261900AbUCQSOm (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:14:42 -0500 Received: from ztxmail04.ztx.compaq.com ([161.114.1.208]:64519 "EHLO ztxmail04.ztx.compaq.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261852AbUCQSOe (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:14:34 -0500 Message-ID: <405893FC.4030209@hp.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:07:56 -0500 From: Robert Picco User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, colpatch@us.ibm.com, mbligh@aracnet.com Subject: Re: boot time node and memory limit options References: <40573460.9090605@hp.com> <16471.48076.447058.132559@napali.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <16471.48076.447058.132559@napali.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1692 Lines: 52 Hi David: Well our IA64 "mem=" is used in efi_memmap_walk. We could change the name to "max_address=". The X86 "mem=" takes effect before the bootmem allocator is initialized. My patch eliminates memory before mem_init frees all bootmap memory. My proposed patch doesn't have the same functionality as X86 "mem=". thanks, Bob David Mosberger wrote: >Hi Bob, > > > >>>>>>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:07:44 -0500, Robert Picco said: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > Bob> This patch supports three boot line options. mem_limit limits > Bob> the amount of physical memory. node_mem_limit limits the > Bob> amount of physical memory per node on a NUMA machine. > Bob> nodes_limit reduces the number of NUMA nodes to the value > Bob> specified. On a NUMA machine an eliminated node's CPU(s) are > Bob> removed from the cpu_possible_map. > > Bob> The patch has been tested on an IA64 NUMA machine and > Bob> uniprocessor X86 machine. > >Would it make sense to improve on the consistency of the "mem" option >at the same time. IIRC, "mem=N" on x86 means "limit amount of memory >to N", whereas on ia64 it means "ignore memory above N". In my >opinion, it would make sense to change the ia64 "mem" to option to >match the behavior on x86 and then to use "mem_limit=N" for the >"ignore memory above N" case (which is very useful for testing >addressing issues, such as I/O MMU issues). > >Thanks, > > --david > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/