Prev: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86: avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts)
Next: [PATCH 8/8] [watchdog] separate touch_nmi_watchdog code path from touch_watchdog
From: Andrew Morton on 7 May 2010 17:00
On Fri, 07 May 2010 13:50:52 +0800
minskey guo <chaohong_guo(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:

> This patch enables users to online CPUs even if the CPUs belongs to
> a numa node which doesn't have onlined local memory.
>
> The zonlists(pg_data_t.node_zonelists[]) of a numa node are created
> either in system boot/init period, or at the time of local memory
> online. For a numa node without onlined local memory, its zonelists
> are not initialized at present. As a result, any memory allocation
> operations executed by CPUs within this node will fail. In fact, an
> out-of-memory error is triggered when attempt to online CPUs before
> memory comes to online.
>
> This patch tries to create zonelists for such numa nodes, so that
> the memory allocation for this node can be fallback'ed to other
> nodes.

I had a horrible time extracting a usable patch from this email.
Please don't send two copies of a patch in a single email. One version
was space-stuffed and the other had text/plain mimetype. text/plain
attachents are OK. Plain old inlined text is preferred, but first
email yourself a test patch to check that it isn't getting mangled.
Make sure that the patch has lines longer than 100 chars to check for
wordwrapping.


I removed the unneeded EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mem_online_node);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86: avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts)
Next: [PATCH 8/8] [watchdog] separate touch_nmi_watchdog code path from touch_watchdog