Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes

[Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@kolumbus.fi>]

> > > 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 before
> > acpi_numa) 
> >     
>
> The information used by absent_pages_in_range() should match what was
> available to e820_hole_size().
>
>   
But it doesn't : all active ranges are removed before parsing srat. I 
think we really need to check against e820 here.

--Mika

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/