From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755314Ab0L3UOi (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:14:38 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:50401 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755041Ab0L3UOh (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:14:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4D1CE80D.3050503@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:14:05 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, yinghai@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, penberg@kernel.org, shaohui.zheng@intel.com, rientjes@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] x86: unify x86_32 and 64 NUMA init paths, take#4 References: <1293731369-10851-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1293731369-10851-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/30/2010 09:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > The only change from the last take[L] is that it's now based on > tip/x86/numa. Unfortunately, some of the collisions weren't trivial > and led to some ugliness. > > Commit c1c3443c ("x86, numa: Fake node-to-cpumask for NUMA emulation") > introduced hard dependency on x86_64 into numa_add/remove_cpu() when > CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is enabled. 0015 has been updated so that the 32/64 > bit common versions used when !CONFIG_NUMA_EMU are in numa.c while > CONFIG_NUMA_EMU variants are in numa_64.c. > > This is ugly but still better than before. IIUC, Shaohui's patchsets > is going to unify NUMA emulation across 32 and 64bit, which should > remove the above ugliness. I haven't looked through the patchset yet > but after skimming through the current NUMA_EMU code, here are some of > my thoughts, FWIW. > > * There's no reason for different NUMA config methods to construct > different data structures. They all, including 32bit, can build a > single set of data structures. > > * Then, unification of NUMA_EMU would naturally follow. There's no > reason to think about whether the underlying NUMA and proximity > information is provided by ACPI, AMD or whatever. It just needs to > manipulate the processed data. > > Let's _please_ head that way instead of adding more gluing codes and > hacks everywhere. It would be a bit more churn but I don't think > there's any other sustainable way. > Agreed 100%. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.