Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node

Anton Blanchard
2010-01-07T00:02:05Z

Hi David,

> This seems to be the same semantics that NUMA_NO_NODE was defined for,
> it's not necessarily a special case.
>
> Regardless, the result of cpumask_of_node(NUMA_NO_NODE) should be
> undefined as it currently is unless you want to obsolete NUMA_NO_NODE
> entirely which is much more work. In other words, special-casing a nid of
> -1 to mean no affinity is inappropriate if NUMA_NO_NODE represents an
> invalid nid.
>
> If x86 pci buses want to use -1 to imply that meaning, that's fine, but it
> shouldn't be coded in a generic interface such as cpumask_of_node(). Does
> that make sense?

I wasn't using the example to strengthen the case of the -1 behaviour, but to
highlight that a complete fix would be more work and risk not making it back
to -stable.

I'm all for removing the special case as a followon patch.

> > Speaking of invalid node ids, I also noticed the scheduler isn't using
> > node iterators:
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids; i++) {
> >
> > which should be fixed at some stage too since it doesn't allow us to
> > allocate the node structures sparsely.
>
> That loop has nothing to do with the allocation of a node structure, it's
> quite plausible that it checks for various states such as node_online(i)
> while looping and doing something else interesting for those that are
> offline. Keep in mind that this isn't equivalent to using for_each_node()
> since that only iterates over N_POSSIBLE which is architecture specific.

Yeah I understand it isn't the same thing, but the scheduler oopses in
a number of places with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK and sparse node ids, so things
that can be switched to node iterators should and node_online() checks
should be added elsewhere.

Anton