From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (e23smtp04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F0E11A027E for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:46:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:46:41 +1000 Received: from d23relay08.au.ibm.com (d23relay08.au.ibm.com [9.185.71.33]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4C82CE8040 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:46:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay08.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t5Q6kQZQ1049072 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:46:34 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t5Q6k4i4019940 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:46:04 +1000 From: Nikunj A Dadhania To: Anton Blanchard , "Michael Ellerman" 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: <87d20mewk2.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1433911816-854-1-git-send-email-nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lhfs5ewc.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150623111648.1e31a497@kryten> <87d20mewk2.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:15:37 +0530 Message-ID: <87fv5fynla.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/Michael, Nikunj A Dadhania writes: > 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. If the patch looks fine, can this be pushed upstream ? Regards, Nikunj