Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:33:04 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: Change size of node ids from u8 to u16 fixup |
| |
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Mike Travis wrote:
> > Yeah, NID_INVAL is negative so no unsigned type will work here, > > unfortunately. And that reduces the intended savings of your change since > > the smaller type can only be used with a smaller CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT. > > > > Excuse my ignorance but why wouldn't this work: > > static numanode_t pxm_to_node_map[MAX_PXM_DOMAINS] > = { [0 ... MAX_PXM_DOMAINS - 1] = NUMA_NO_NODE }; > ... > >> int acpi_map_pxm_to_node(int pxm) > >> { > > int node = pxm_to_node_map[pxm]; > > > > if (node < 0) > > numanode_t node = pxm_to_node_map[pxm]; >
Because NUMA_NO_NODE is 0xff on x86. That's a valid node id for configurations with CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT equal to or greater than 8.
> if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
Wrong, this should be
node == NUMA_NO_NODE
> >> if (nodes_weight(nodes_found_map) >= MAX_NUMNODES) > >> return NID_INVAL; > >> node = first_unset_node(nodes_found_map); > >> __acpi_map_pxm_to_node(pxm, node); > >> node_set(node, nodes_found_map); > >> } >
The net result of this is that if a proximity domain is looked up through acpi_map_pxm_to_node() and already has a mapping to node 255 (legal with CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT == 8), this function will return NID_INVAL since the weight of nodes_found_map is equal to MAX_NUMNODES.
You simply can't use valid node id's to signify invalid or unused node ids.
> or change: > #define NID_INVAL (-1) > to > #define NID_INVAL ((numanode_t)(-1)) > ... > if (node != NID_INVAL) {
You mean
node == NID_INVAL
> >> if (nodes_weight(nodes_found_map) >= MAX_NUMNODES) > >> return NID_INVAL; > >> node = first_unset_node(nodes_found_map); > >> __acpi_map_pxm_to_node(pxm, node); > >> node_set(node, nodes_found_map); > >> } >
That's the equivalent of your NUMA_NO_NODE code above. The fact remains that (numanode_t)-1 is still a valid node id for MAX_NUMNODES >= 256.
So, as I said in my initial reply, the only way to get the savings you're looking for is to use u8 for CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT <= 7 and then convert all NID_INVAL users to use NUMA_NO_NODE.
Additionally, Linux has always discouraged typedefs when they do not define an architecture-specific size. The savings from your patch for CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT == 7 would be 256 bytes for this mapping.
It's simply not worth it.
> And btw, shouldn't the pxm value be sized to numanode_t size as well? > Will it ever be larger than the largest node id? >
Section 6.2.9 of ACPI 2.0 states that PXM's return an integer, so that would be non-conforming to the standard.
Additionally, PXM's are not nodes, so casting them to anything called numanode_t shows the semantic flaw in your patch.
David
| |