From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1OMu20D672750 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:56:02 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j1OMu1XW171910 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:56:02 -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 j1OMu1RA001534 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:56:01 -0700 From: James Cleverdon Reply-To: jamesclv@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] SRAT cleanup: make calculations and indenting level more sane Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:56:13 -0800 References: <200502241249.54796.jamesclv@us.ibm.com> <1109282578.9817.1993.camel@knk> In-Reply-To: <1109282578.9817.1993.camel@knk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200502241456.14048.jamesclv@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: keith Cc: Dave Hansen , linux-mm , matt dobson , Mike Kravetz , "Martin J. Bligh" , Anton Blanchard , Yasunori Goto , Andy Whitcroft List-ID: Actually, SRAT was cooked up by the folks at Redmond or Bellevue. If it's still outside of the main ACPI doc tree, well, that says a lot. On Thursday 24 February 2005 02:02 pm, keith wrote: > 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 -- James Cleverdon IBM LTC (xSeries Linux Solutions) {jamesclv(Unix, preferred), cleverdj(Notes)} at us dot ibm dot comm -- 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