At 11/27/2012 11:22 AM, Jianguo Wu Wrote:

On 2012/11/27 11:19, Wen Congyang wrote:

quoted

At 11/27/2012 08:58 AM, Jianguo Wu Wrote:

quoted

On 2012/11/26 23:48, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

quoted

On 11/26/2012 05:15 AM, Tang Chen wrote:

quoted

Hi Wu,

That is really a problem. And, before numa memory got initialized,
memblock subsystem would be used to allocate memory. I didn't find any
approach that could fully address it when I making the patches. There
always be risk that memblock allocates memory on ZONE_MOVABLE. I think
we can only do our best to prevent it from happening.

Your patch is very helpful. And after a shot look at the code, it seems
that acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() is an architecture dependent
function. Could we do this somewhere which is not depending on the
architecture ?

The movable memory should be classified as a non-RAM type in memblock,
that way we will not allocate from it early on.

	-hpa

yep, we can put movable memory in reserved.regions in memblock.

Hmm, I don't think so. If so, memory in reserved.regions contain two type
memory: bootmem and movable memory. We will put all pages not in reserved.regions
into buddy system. If we put movable memory in reserved.regions, we have
no chance to put them to buddy system, and can't use them after system boots.

yes, you are right. Or we can fix movablecore_map when add memory region to memblock.

If so, we should know the nodes address range...

Thanks
Wen Congyang

quoted

Thanks
Wen Congyang

quoted

quoted

.

.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>