[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DBC3976.7030205@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:31:50 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET tip] x86, NUMA: Unify 32 and 64bit NUMA initialization
On 04/30/2011 05:17 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Yinghai.
>
> Nice catch, but,
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:14:14PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> [PATCH] x86, numa: Trim numa meminfo correctly
>>
>> During testing 32bit numa unifying code from tj, found one system with more than 64g
>> fail to use numa.
>>
>> It turn out we do not trim that numa meminfo correctly with max_pfn.
>> start could be bigger than 64g too.
>>
>> Also need to make the checking in seperated loop.
>
> Why?
so do not need to compare them with low/high in following inner loop.
>
> Isn't all that necessary the following?
>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: work/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> ===================================================================
> --- work.orig/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> +++ work/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct n
> bi->end = min(bi->end, high);
>
> /* and there's no empty block */
> - if (bi->start == bi->end) {
> + if (bi->start >= bi->end) {
> numa_remove_memblk_from(i--, mi);
> continue;
> }
--
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