Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:42:27 -0800 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/14] x86, mm, numa: Move emulation handling down. |
| |
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:36PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > -static int __init numa_check_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > + > +int __init numa_check_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > { > + nodemask_t tmp_node_map; > unsigned long pfn_align; > > /* Account for nodes with cpus and no memory */ > - node_possible_map = numa_nodes_parsed; > - numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(&node_possible_map, mi); > - if (WARN_ON(nodes_empty(node_possible_map))) > + tmp_node_map = numa_nodes_parsed; > + numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(&tmp_node_map, mi); > + if (WARN_ON(nodes_empty(tmp_node_map))) > return -EINVAL; > > if (!numa_meminfo_cover_memory(mi)) > @@ -562,6 +564,7 @@ static int __init numa_check_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > return -EINVAL; > } > > + node_possible_map = tmp_node_map;
Hmmm.... it's kinda nasty to have a side effect like the above for a function named numa_check_memblks(). Maybe we can move this to the caller or name the function to make it clear that some global state is being updated?
> @@ -608,8 +611,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > - numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); > - > ret = numa_check_memblks(&numa_meminfo); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > @@ -669,6 +670,8 @@ void __init x86_numa_init(void) > numa_init(dummy_numa_init); > > out: > + numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); > + > for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { > struct numa_memblk *mb = &mi->blk[i]; > memblock_set_node(mb->start, mb->end - mb->start, mb->nid); > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c > index dbbbb47..5a0433d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c > @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ void __init numa_emulation(struct numa_meminfo *numa_meminfo, int numa_dist_cnt) > if (ret < 0) > goto no_emu; > > - if (numa_cleanup_meminfo(&ei) < 0) { > + if (numa_cleanup_meminfo(&ei) < 0 || numa_check_memblks(&ei) < 0) { > pr_warning("NUMA: Warning: constructed meminfo invalid, disabling emulation\n"); > goto no_emu; > }
Given that acpi is the only mechanism which matters in any modern NUMA machines, I think the re-ordering should be fine.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |