Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken

To:	Ryan Harper <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken
From:	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:17:30 +0100
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:17:44 +0100
Envelope-to:	Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<20070330180853.GT28736@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	Acdy962y7B7hRN7qEdusYQAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] numa=on broken
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214



On 30/3/07 19:08, "Ryan Harper" <ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> So -- can we ensure that the node that owns low memory is node zero?
> 
> AFAIK, that is the case, look at the SRAT table:
> 
> (XEN) SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 0-a0000
> (XEN) SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 0-e0000000
> (XEN) SRAT: Node 1 PXM 1 100000000-200000000

What if you move end_boot_allocator() to just before 'early_boot = 0' in
arch/x86/setup.c?

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Previous by Date:	Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken, Ryan Harper
Next by Date:	Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken, Ryan Harper
Previous by Thread:	Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken, Ryan Harper
Next by Thread:	Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken, Ryan Harper
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] numa=on broken