[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005022254170.28355@www.lameter.com>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 22:55:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...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>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible
cpus
On Fri, 1 May 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> - for_each_present_cpu(cpu)
> - numa_setup_cpu(cpu);
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + /*
> + * Powerpc with CONFIG_NUMA always used to have a node 0,
> + * even if it was memoryless or cpuless. For all cpus that
> + * are possible but not present, cpu_to_node() would point
> + * to node 0. To remove a cpuless, memoryless dummy node,
> + * powerpc need to make sure all possible but not present
> + * cpu_to_node are set to a proper node.
> + */
> + if (cpu_present(cpu))
> + numa_setup_cpu(cpu);
> + else
> + set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, first_online_node);
> + }
> }
Can this be folded into numa_setup_cpu?
This looks more like numa_setup_cpu needs to change?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists