Re: [PATCH 1/4] try parent numa_node at first before using default

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:52:34PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > > @@ -547,6 +547,8 @@ static void klist_children_put(struct klist_node *n)
> > >  
> > >  void device_initialize(struct device *dev)
> > >  {
> > > +	int node;
> > > +
> > >  	kobj_set_kset_s(dev, devices_subsys);
> > >  	kobject_init(&dev->kobj);
> > >  	klist_init(&dev->klist_children, klist_children_get,
> > > @@ -557,7 +559,9 @@ void device_initialize(struct device *dev)
> > >  	spin_lock_init(&dev->devres_lock);
> > >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->devres_head);
> > >  	device_init_wakeup(dev, 0);
> > > -	set_dev_node(dev, -1);
> > > +
> > > +	node = dev->parent ? dev_to_node(dev->parent) : -1;
> > > +	set_dev_node(dev, node);
> > >  }
> > 
> > What is this going to give us?
> > 
> > Doesn't it mean that all devices will end up on the same node?
> 
> It means that the node for the device is the same as the parent device.
> F.e. if the parent device is a bus that is connected to node 4 then all 
> the devices hooked up to the bus are allocated on that node.

Yes, but is someone setting the parent device node information properly?

And this really needs some more changelog information please.  Why is
this needed from how things are done today?

thanks,

greg k-h