Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:46:17 -0800 | From | Yinghai Lu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling |
| |
On 03/02/2011 08:37 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, Yinghai. > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:16:18AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> my original part: >> >> @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ void __init numa_reset_distance(void) >> size_t size; >> >> if (numa_distance_cnt) { >> - size = numa_distance_cnt * sizeof(numa_distance[0]); >> + size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt * sizeof(numa_distance[0]); >> memblock_x86_free_range(__pa(numa_distance), >> __pa(numa_distance) + size); >> numa_distance_cnt = 0; >> >> So can you tell me why you need to make those change? >> move out assigning or numa_distance_cnt and size of the the IF > > Please read the patch description. I actually wrote that down. :-)
well you said: > while at it, take numa_distance_cnt resetting in > numa_reset_distance() out of the if block to simplify the code a bit.
what are you talking about? what do you mean "simplify the code a bit" ?
> >> the change include: >> 1. you only need to go over new_nr*new_nr instead huge MAX_NUMNODES * MAX_NUMNODES >> 2. you do NOT need to go over it if you don't have phys_dist assigned before. >> numa_alloc_distance already have that default set. >> 3. do need to check if phys_dist is assigned before referring phys_dist. > > * If you wanted to make that change, split it into a separate patch. > Don't mix it with changes which actually fix the bug. > > * I don't think it's gonna matter all that much. It's one time and > only used if emulation is enabled, but then again yeap MAX_NUMNODES > * MAX_NUMNODES can get quite high, but it looks way too complicated > for what it achieves. Just looping over enabled nodes should > achieve about the same thing in much simpler way, right?
what kind of excuse to put inefficiency code there!
Yinghai
| |