[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091016063405.GB20388@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:34:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Cliff Whickman <cpw@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] x86, UV: fixups for configurations with a large
number of nodes.
* Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:
> We need the __uv_hub_info structure to contain the correct values for
> n_val, gpa_mask, and lowmem_remap_*. The first patch in the series
> accomplishes this. Could this be included in the stable tree as well.
> Without this patch, booting a large configuration hits a problem where
> the upper bits of the gnode affect the pnode and the bau will not
> operate.
i've applied this one.
> The second patch cleans up the broadcast assist unit code a small bit.
Seems to be more than just a 'cleanup'. It changes:
uv_nshift = uv_hub_info->m_val;
to (in essence):
uv_hub_info->m_val & ((1UL << uv_hub_info->n_val) - 1)
which is not the same. Furthermore, the new inline is:
+ return gpa >> uv_hub_info->m_val & ((1UL << uv_hub_info->n_val) - 1);
note that >> has higher priority than bitwise & - is that intended? I
think the intention was:
+ return gpa >> (uv_hub_info->m_val & ((1UL << uv_hub_info->n_val) - 1));
in any case please do that cleaner by adding a separate mask variable.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists