[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D6EA975.8070200@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:32:53 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
tglx@...utronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
On 03/02/2011 11:13 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:06:41AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Hmmm? I can't really follow your sentence. This is init stage.
>>> Anyways, why can't it just walk over the enabled nodes? What would be
>>> the difference?
>>
>> my point is that we really not need to go over it if original is not there.
>
> Oh, you mean if (!phys_dist)? Yeah yeah sure, I was mostly talking
> about allocating new table separately and returning the count and all
> those things. Can you just do the phys_dist testing and going over
> enabled nodes?
why use enabled nodes?
numa_alloc_distance already have calculated. with numa_nodes_parsed and numa_meminfo
/* size the new table and allocate it */
nodes_parsed = numa_nodes_parsed;
numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(&nodes_parsed, &numa_meminfo);
for_each_node_mask(i, nodes_parsed)
cnt = i;
cnt++;
--
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