[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200430043445.GE19958@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:04:45 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn
* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2020-04-29 12:22:29]:
> Hello Srikar,
>
>
> > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > + cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> > + if (cpu) {
>
> Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?
>
> > + nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> > + of_node_put(cpu);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
> of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
> should we still call node_set_online() below ?
Yeah, I think It makes sense to retain the BUG_ON and if check.
Will incorporate both of them in the next version.
>
>
> > node_set_online(nid);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists