[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151003074428.GA25143@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 09:44:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/apic: Use smaller array for __apicid_to_node[]
mapping
* Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> @@ -56,16 +56,34 @@ early_param("numa", numa_setup);
> /*
> * apicid, cpu, node mappings
> */
> -s16 __apicid_to_node[MAX_LOCAL_APICID] = {
> - [0 ... MAX_LOCAL_APICID-1] = NUMA_NO_NODE
> +
> +struct apicid_to_node __apicid_to_node[NR_CPUS] = {
> + [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = {-1, NUMA_NO_NODE}
> };
>
> +void set_apicid_to_node(int apicid, s16 node)
> +{
> + static int ent;
having such statics inside functions is really obscure and makes review harder.
I had to look twice to see it. Please move it outside and also name it
appropriately.
> + /* Protect against small kernel on large system */
> + if (ent >= NR_CPUS)
> + return;
> +
> + __apicid_to_node[ent].apicid = apicid;
> + __apicid_to_node[ent].node = node;
> + ent++;
> +}
So what happens if we run a small kernel and run out of entries? We just silently
seem to return, no warning, no nothing - the system will likely fail to boot in
myserious ways, right?
Thanks,
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