From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/14] arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:49:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20160826154942.GK30302@arm.com> References: <1472024693-12912-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <1472024693-12912-13-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1472024693-12912-13-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Zhen Lei Cc: devicetree , Zefan Li , Catalin Marinas , Hanjun Guo , linux-kernel , Xinwei Hu , Rob Herring , Tianhong Ding , Frank Rowand , linux-arm-kernel List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > 1. Currently only cpu0 set on cpu_possible_mask and percpu areas have not > been initialized. > 2. No reason to limit cpu0 must belongs to node0. Whilst I suspect you're using enumerated lists in order to try to make things clearer, I'm having a really hard time understanding the commit messages you have in this series. It's actually much better if you structure them as concise paragraphs explaining: - What is the problem that you're fixing? - How does that problem manifest? - How does the patch fix it? As far as I can see, this patch just removes a bunch of code with no explanation as to why it's not required or any problems caused by keeping it around. Will > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei > --- > arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 12 ++---------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > index 114180f..07a1978 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > @@ -94,7 +94,6 @@ void numa_clear_node(unsigned int cpu) > */ > static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) > { > - unsigned int cpu; > int node; > > /* setup nr_node_ids if not done yet */ > @@ -107,9 +106,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) > cpumask_clear(node_to_cpumask_map[node]); > } > > - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > - set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE); > - > /* cpumask_of_node() will now work */ > pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids); > } > @@ -119,13 +115,13 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) > */ > void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu) > { > - map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]); > + map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]); > } > > void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid) > { > /* fallback to node 0 */ > - if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) > + if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off) > nid = 0; > > cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid; > @@ -375,10 +371,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) > > setup_node_to_cpumask_map(); > > - /* init boot processor */ > - cpu_to_node_map[0] = 0; > - map_cpu_to_node(0, 0); > - > return 0; > } > > -- > 2.5.0 > >