Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262062AbUCQUxJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:53:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262063AbUCQUxJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:53:09 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:50138 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262062AbUCQUxG (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:53:06 -0500 Subject: Re: boot time node and memory limit options From: Dave Hansen To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Robert Picco , Jesse Barnes , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Matthew Dobson In-Reply-To: <2611830000.1079552673@[10.10.2.4]> References: <4057392A.8000602@hp.com> <20040316174329.GA29992@sgi.com> <34060000.1079465992@flay> <405879BC.7060904@hp.com> <1745150000.1079541412@[10.10.2.4]> <4058A75A.3080409@hp.com> <2611830000.1079552673@[10.10.2.4]> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079556766.5789.593.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:52:47 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1471 Lines: 31 On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 11:44, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Yes ... that's looking very 2.7-ish to reorganise all that stuff. > However, for now, I still think we need to restrict memory very early > on, before anything else can allocate bootmem. Are you the absolute > first thing that ever runs in the boot allocator? I definitely agree with the 2.7 target for what I posted. We can do it cleanly in 2.7, but for now, I think the most best solution is to do it in each architecture. Partly because it's the way that we already do mem=, plus I'm not sure the boot allocator code will work with all architectures, at least ppc64. It's probably an oversight in the implementation (of the early ppc64 boot code), but there is some required correlation required with things like lmb_end_of_DRAM() and how much memory is being used by the mm structures. I've played with it a bit, and I _think_ that you would be required to modify the lmb structures, even with Robert's bootmem patch. I could be wrong, so can somebody test it on a NUMA ppc64 machine? Also, it may have been discussed before, but does the bootmem patch have any applicability to the 32-bit NUMA platforms? It looks like it just deals with ZONE_DMA. -- dave - 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/