[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2987470-3680-9923-d114-a7d7b08c06e7@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:52:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/numa_emulation: Fix uniform-split numa emulation
On 10/25/18 1:26 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
> @@ -400,9 +400,17 @@ void __init numa_emulation(struct numa_meminfo *numa_meminfo, int numa_dist_cnt)
> n = simple_strtoul(emu_cmdline, &emu_cmdline, 0);
> ret = -1;
> for_each_node_mask(i, physnode_mask) {
> + /*
> + * The reason we pass in blk[0] is due to
> + * numa_remove_memblk_from() called by
> + * emu_setup_memblk() will delete entry 0
> + * and then move everything else up in the pi.blk
> + * array. Therefore we should always be looking
> + * at blk[0].
> + */
> ret = split_nodes_size_interleave_uniform(&ei, &pi,
> - pi.blk[i].start, pi.blk[i].end, 0,
> - n, &pi.blk[i], nid);
> + pi.blk[0].start, pi.blk[0].end, 0,
> + n, &pi.blk[0], nid);
So, has this *ever* worked on a multi-socket configuration? Or has it
just never been run on a multi-socket configuration?
Either way, nice changelog, and nice comments. I'd have some minor nits
if you have to respin it, but otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists