From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp03.in.ibm.com (e28smtp03.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0535E1A1147 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:03:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp03.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:33:18 +0530 Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by d28dlp02.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD249394006D for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:33:13 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t5N739ZU49283138 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:33:12 +0530 Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t5N62NqR030180 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:32:24 +0530 From: Nikunj A Dadhania To: Anton Blanchard Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: initialize distance lookup table from drconf path In-Reply-To: <20150623111648.1e31a497@kryten> References: <1433911816-854-1-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lhfs5ewc.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150623111648.1e31a497@kryten> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:33:09 +0530 Message-ID: <87d20mewk2.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Anton, Anton Blanchard writes: > Hi Nikunj, > >> From: Nikunj A Dadhania >> >> powerpc/numa: initialize distance lookup table from drconf path >> >> In some situations, a NUMA guest that supports >> ibm,dynamic-memory-reconfiguration node will end up having flat NUMA >> distances between nodes. This is because of two problems in the >> current code. > > Thanks for the patch. Have we tested that this doesn't regress the > non dynamic representation? Yes, that is tested. And works as expected. Regards Nikunj