From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-x22e.google.com (mail-qc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA741A04B2 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:18:12 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by qcxn11 with SMTP id n11so24335076qcx.3 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:18:10 -0800 (PST) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:18:07 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map Message-ID: <20150305221807.GH23912@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20150305180549.GA29601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1425592132.13327.0.camel@ellerman.id.au> <20150305220804.GF23912@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150305220804.GF23912@htj.duckdns.org> Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Raghavendra K T , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 05:08:04PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > It can be argued that we should always stick to the online masks for > allocation and iteration; however, that usually requires more > complexity and the only cases where this mattered have been when the > boot code got it wrong and failed to set the possible masks correctly, > which also seems to be the case here. I don't see any reason to > deviate here. Hmm... but yeah, as you wrote, keeping the allocation local could be a reason but let's please not do this just to reduce memory consumption. If memory locality of the field affects performance noticeably, sure. Thanks. -- tejun