From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:31:51 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100106233151.GC12742@kryten> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001061454580.11653@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Hi David,
> Do we really want to do this? A nid of -1 is undefined, so the result of
> cpumask_of_node(-1) should be undefined; there's no formal definition that
> a nid of -1 follows the semantics that we use for x86 pci buses, for
> example, where it implies no NUMA locality in all cases.
I don't like the use of -1 as a node, but it's much more widespread than
x86; including sh, powerpc, sparc and the generic topology code. eg:
#fdef CONFIG_PCI
extern int pcibus_to_node(struct pci_bus *pbus);
#else
static inline int pcibus_to_node(struct pci_bus *pbus)
{
return -1;
}
It would be nice to get rid of this special case but I suspect that's not
2.6.33 material.
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.
Anton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-06 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-06 4:55 [patch 0/6] cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node Anton Blanchard
2010-01-06 4:55 ` [patch 1/6] powerpc: " Anton Blanchard
2010-01-06 4:55 ` [patch 2/6] alpha: " Anton Blanchard
2010-01-14 18:24 ` Matt Turner
2010-01-06 4:55 ` [patch 3/6] ia64: " Anton Blanchard
2010-01-06 4:55 ` [patch 4/6] mips: " Anton Blanchard
2010-01-11 10:42 ` Ralf Baechle
2010-01-06 4:55 ` [patch 5/6] sparc: " Anton Blanchard
2010-01-07 4:22 ` David Miller
2010-01-06 4:55 ` [patch 6/6] x86: " Anton Blanchard
2010-01-06 6:36 ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-06 23:00 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-06 23:31 ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
2010-01-06 23:51 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-07 0:01 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-01-07 0:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-07 0:39 ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-07 8:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-06 23:20 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-01-11 22:11 ` [patch 0/6] " Andrew Morton
2010-01-12 1:07 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-01-12 2:04 ` Anton Blanchard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100106233151.GC12742@kryten \
--to=anton@samba.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox