But it doesn't : all active ranges are removed before parsing srat. I think we really need to check against e820 here.static __init inline int srat_disabled(void) @@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ static int hotadd_enough_memory(struct b if (mem < 0) return 0; - allowed = (end_pfn - e820_hole_size(0, end_pfn)) * PAGE_SIZE;+ allowed = (end_pfn - absent_pages_in_range(0, end_pfn)) * PAGE_SIZE;allowed = (allowed / 100) * hotadd_percent; if (allocated + mem > allowed) { unsigned long range; @@ -238,7 +239,7 @@ static int reserve_hotadd(int node, unsi }/* This check might be a bit too strict, but I'm keeping it for now. */- if (e820_hole_size(s_pfn, e_pfn) != e_pfn - s_pfn) { + if (absent_pages_in_range(s_pfn, e_pfn) != e_pfn - s_pfn) {printk(KERN_ERR "SRAT: Hotplug area has existing memory\n");return -1; }We really do want to to compare against the e820 map at it contains the memory that is really present (this info was blown away beforeacpi_numa)The information used by absent_pages_in_range() should match what was available to e820_hole_size().
--Mika - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V9
- From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
- From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
- From: "Keith Mannthey" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
- From: [email protected] (Mel Gorman)
- [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V9
- Prev by Date: Re: x86_64 account-for-memmap patch in 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 doesn't boot.
- Next by Date: Re: bug in nfs in 2.6.18-rc5?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
- Index(es):
 |