[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100106233151.GC12742@kryten>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:31:51 +1100
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node
Hi David,
> Do we really want to do this? A nid of -1 is undefined, so the result of
> cpumask_of_node(-1) should be undefined; there's no formal definition that
> a nid of -1 follows the semantics that we use for x86 pci buses, for
> example, where it implies no NUMA locality in all cases.
I don't like the use of -1 as a node, but it's much more widespread than
x86; including sh, powerpc, sparc and the generic topology code. eg:
#fdef CONFIG_PCI
extern int pcibus_to_node(struct pci_bus *pbus);
#else
static inline int pcibus_to_node(struct pci_bus *pbus)
{
return -1;
}
It would be nice to get rid of this special case but I suspect that's not
2.6.33 material.
Speaking of invalid node ids, I also noticed the scheduler isn't using
node iterators:
for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids; i++) {
which should be fixed at some stage too since it doesn't allow us to
allocate the node structures sparsely.
Anton
--
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