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

[Yinghai Lu]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [trim down CC list a bit]
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/28/2013 08:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> > Yingai, Andrew,
>>> >  is this ok with you two?
>>> >
>>> >         Linus
>>>
>>> FWIW, it makes sense to me iff it resolves the problems
>>
>>
>> I prefer to reverting all 8 patches.
>>
>> Actually I have worked out one patch that could solve all problems, but it
>> is too intrusive that I do      not want to split it to small pieces to post
>> it.
>>
>> Leaving the movablemem_map related changes in  the upstream tree, will
>> prevent me from continuing to make memblock to be used to allocate page
>> table on local node ram for hot add.
>>
>> Will send reverting patch and putting page table on local node patch around
>> 10pm after I get home.
>
> Please check attached patches.
>
> Plan A. revert all 8 patches:
>     revert_movablemem_map.patch
>
> Plan B. fix movablemem_map:
>     kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch
>
> fix_movablemem_map.patch is too risky, and need more test.
>
> Konrad, Stefano:
> Can you check kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch
> on top of today's Linus tree to check if it breaks Xen?
>

Sorry, miss change in setup.c during split the patch.

Thanks

Yinghai

Attachment: fix_movablemem_map_v2.patch
Description: Binary data