Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:59:38 +0900 | From | Magnus Damm <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/07] i386: numa emulation on pc |
| |
Hi again Dave,
On 10/1/05, Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 16:33 +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > void __init nid_zone_sizes_init(int nid) > > { > > unsigned long zones_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0, 0, 0}; > > - unsigned long max_dma; > > + unsigned long max_dma = min(max_hardware_dma_pfn(), max_low_pfn); > > unsigned long start = node_start_pfn[nid]; > > unsigned long end = node_end_pfn[nid]; > > > > if (node_has_online_mem(nid)){ > > - if (nid_starts_in_highmem(nid)) { > > - zones_size[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = nid_size_pages(nid); > > - } else { > > - max_dma = min(max_hardware_dma_pfn(), max_low_pfn); > > - zones_size[ZONE_DMA] = max_dma; > > - zones_size[ZONE_NORMAL] = max_low_pfn - max_dma; > > - zones_size[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = end - max_low_pfn; > > + if (start < max_dma) { > > + zones_size[ZONE_DMA] = min(end, max_dma) - start; > > + } > > + if (start < max_low_pfn && max_dma < end) { > > + zones_size[ZONE_NORMAL] = min(end, max_low_pfn) - max(start, max_dma); > > + } > > + if (max_low_pfn <= end) { > > + zones_size[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = end - max(start, max_low_pfn); > > } > > } > > That is a decent cleanup all by itself. You might want to break it out. > Take a look at the patches I just sent out. They do some similar things > to the same code.
Break it out, sure! I'm not sure which patch to look at, though.
> > @@ -1270,7 +1273,12 @@ void __init setup_bootmem_allocator(void > > /* > > * Initialize the boot-time allocator (with low memory only): > > */ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU > > + bootmap_size = init_bootmem(max(min_low_pfn, node_start_pfn[0]), > > + min(max_low_pfn, node_end_pfn[0])); > > +#else > > bootmap_size = init_bootmem(min_low_pfn, max_low_pfn); > > +#endif > > This shouldn't be necessary. Again, take a look at my discontig > separation patches and see if what I did works for you here.
Do you mean "discontig-consolidate0.patch"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU > ... > > +#endif > > Ewwwwww :) No real need to put new function in a big #ifdef like that. > Can you just create a new file for NUMA emulation?
Hehe, what is this, a beauty contest? =) I agree, but I guess the reason for this code to be here is that a similar arrangement is done by x86_64...
I will create a new file. Is arch/i386/mm/numa_emu.c good?
> > --- from-0001/include/asm-i386/numnodes.h > > +++ to-work/include/asm-i386/numnodes.h 2005-09-28 17:49:53.000000000 +0900 > > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ > > /* Max 16 Nodes */ > > #define NODES_SHIFT 4 > > > > -#elif defined(CONFIG_ACPI_SRAT) > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ACPI_SRAT) || defined(CONFIG_NUMA_EMU) > > > > /* Max 8 Nodes */ > > #define NODES_SHIFT 3 > > Geez. We should probably just do those in the Kconfig files. Would > look much simpler. But, that's a patch for another day. This is fine > by itself.
No biggie, I will add a config option.
But first, you have written lots and lots of patches, and I am confused. Could you please tell me on which patches I should base my code to make things as easy as possible?
Many thanks,
/ magnus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |