From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dean Nelson Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:10:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] SGI Altix cross partition functionality Message-Id: <20040823171008.GB11321@sgi.com> List-Id: References: <20040616163339.GA27891@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040616163339.GA27891@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 10:00:04PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:04:48AM -0500, Dean Nelson wrote: > > > bad idea. I have patches to completely kill numnodes, don't try to > > > mess with it. So far it's also completly an architecture-thing. > > > > What are you planning to replace numnodes with? > > A bitmap of online nodes once pj's nodemask_t is in. That way the silly > distinctinon of nasid_t and cnodeid_t values in IP27 and SN2 code can go > away. > > > XPC has two functions (xpc_allow_IPI_ops() and xpc_restrict_IPI_ops()) which > > need to change the protections governing IPI operations and AMO (memory) > > operations for each node in a partition. What mechanism are you proposing > > to allow one to iterate through all of the nodes in a partition? > > I'm not exactly sure. I'll look through once I get a little time. Although I agree that the nodemask_t patch is the proper solution to the numnodes issue, I don't feel that waiting for its arrival should prevent my continuing on with my XP[C|NET] patch. So I'm going to resubmit my proposed patch with numnodes exported. This is with the understanding that once the nodemask_t patch is accepted by the community (resulting in the 'EXPORT_SYMBOL(numnodes);' line being deleted), I'll be glade to rework the two XPC functions to use the 'for_each_node()' macro instead. Dean