From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1OM325j840514 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:03:04 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j1OM2wov118560 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:03:02 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1OM2vog004852 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:02:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] SRAT cleanup: make calculations and indenting level more sane From: keith In-Reply-To: <200502241249.54796.jamesclv@us.ibm.com> References: <1109273434.9817.1950.camel@knk> <1109274881.7244.87.camel@localhost> <200502241249.54796.jamesclv@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1109282578.9817.1993.camel@knk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:02:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: jamesclv@us.ibm.com Cc: Dave Hansen , linux-mm , matt dobson , Mike Kravetz , "Martin J. Bligh" , Anton Blanchard , Yasunori Goto , Andy Whitcroft List-ID: On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:49, James Cleverdon wrote: > No, I don't think we could rely on that. Our BIOS did ascending > addresses, but I don't recall that being spelled out in the ACPI spec. > > Of course, there's a new ACPI spec out. Maybe it makes it a > requirement. I'd take a look, but I can't afford the loss of sanity > caused by gazing on the dread visage of ACPI 3.0. ;^) The SRAT exists outside of the ACPI spec. It is something made up by folks in Kirkland. I just reread the SRAT spec and I don't seen any mention of requirements for linear order. Still yet we have yet to find a box/bios version that breaks this assumption. All I know of is the IBM summit boxes but maybe there is something else. Maybe AMD x86_64 booting into 32 bit have SRATs as well? Anyways maybe we could add some check to catch new hardware with less friendly SRAT tables. after the node_has_online_mem(nid) check if (node_start_pfn[nid] > node_memory_chunk[j].start_pfn) { printk (KERN_WARN "You need to rework the srat.c code\n"); continue; } Keith -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org