[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1012092230010.2653@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:43:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
brgerst@...il.com, gorcunov@...il.com, penberg@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] x86: Unify cpu/apicid <-> NUMA node mapping between
32 and 64bit
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The mapping between cpu/apicid and node is done via apicid_to_node[]
> on 64bit and apicid_2_node[] + apic->numa_cpu_node() on 32bit. This
> difference makes it difficult to further unify 32 and 64bit NUMA
> hanlding.
>
> This patch unifies it by replacing both apicid_to_node[] and
> apicid_2_node[] with __apicid_to_node[] array, which is accessed by
> two accessors - set_apicid_to_node() and numa_cpu_node(). On 64bit,
> numa_cpu_node() always consults __apicid_to_node[] directly while
> 32bit goes through apic->numa_cpu_node() method to allow apic
> implementation to override it.
>
> There are several places where using numa_cpu_node() is awkward and
> the override doesn't matter. In those places, __apicid_to_node[] are
> used directly.
Why is it awkward? Anything outside the accessor functions or
specialized setup code using it is awkward, inconsistent and sloppy.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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