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

[Yinghai Lu]

[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?

Thanks

Yinghai

Attachment: revert_movablemem_map.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: fix_movablemem_map.patch
Description: Binary data