From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 815FC6B0258 for ; Mon, 10 May 2010 01:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:01:59 +0900 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: numa aware lmb and sparc stuff Message-ID: <20100510050158.GA24592@linux-sh.org> References: <1273466126.23699.23.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1273466126.23699.23.camel@pasglop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: David Miller , Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:35:26PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > So unless i'm missing something, I should be able to completely remove > lmb's reliance on that nid_range() callback and instead have lmb itself > use the various early_node_map[] accessors such as > for_each_active_range_index_in_nid() or similar. > If you do this then you will also be coupling LMB with ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP, which the nid_range() callback offers an alternative for (although since there aren't any architectures presently using LMB that don't also set ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP perhaps this is ok). The nobootmem stuff also has a reliance on the early node map already. > If not, then I should be able to easily make that whole LMB numa thing > completely arch neutral. > I've just started sorting out some of the LMB/NUMA bits on SH now as well, so I'd certainly be interested in any changes on top of Yinghai's work you're planning on doing. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org