NUMA memory block size
haveblue at us.ibm.com
Sat Apr 3 13:58:37 EST 2004
On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 19:20, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Below patch fixes this by setting a 16MB MEMORY_INCREMENT instead. It sure
> helps on systems with 16MB LMB, but I don't have enough detail knowledge
> of the numa aspects to tell if it might break something else.
> Anyone else care to share wisdom? Anton? Dave?
> If there are no significant problems caused by this I'd like to feed this
> upstream soon.
I don't see it doing much besides making that array 16 times bigger.
It's right at 1MB now. I guess it will compress down, but that's an
awful lot of uniform initialized variables to be sitting in an
executable image. Should we leave it uninitialized and compile time,
and run through the whole thing once we're booted up?
> #define MAX_MEMORY (1UL << 41)
> /* 256MB regions */
> -#define MEMORY_INCREMENT_SHIFT 28
> +#define MEMORY_INCREMENT_SHIFT 24
> #define MEMORY_INCREMENT (1UL << MEMORY_INCREMENT_SHIFT)
Might want to change the 256MB comment :)
Another place that CONFIG_NONLINEAR could be used, btw...
** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc64-dev