From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753507Ab0LaNUl (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:20:41 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:54841 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753436Ab0LaNUk (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:20:40 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=C27orYdAXRs0bBMXqyS0W/Qd6uPAbS/wM7JZAstE6SGZcfRX05To12N5WSLW411y3v 8geKjstVsxB7Bf7Hmz3bcz5zqCCCO9JEsEuWhPokLCTAUB/ZEyNPKzHzuAHcmoKoqtnI sS4VCqn3V/kVGDZDmMN9nb9btJZFjY60wu06Y= Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:20:34 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: David Rientjes Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , tglx@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, yinghai@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, Pekka Enberg , shaohui.zheng@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] x86: Unify node_to_cpumask_map handling between 32 and 64bit Message-ID: <20101231132034.GK18831@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1293536929-31683-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1293536929-31683-16-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20101230124800.GD18831@htj.dyndns.org> <20101230145858.GE18831@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:40:33AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Sigh, the new NUMA emulation thing is 64bit only. :-( I'll see if it > > > can be applied to 32bit too. BTW, how does this interact with the > > > Shaohui's patchset. Isn't that about NUMA emulation too? Are these > > > the same patches? > > Shaohui's patchset is for node hotplug emulation, not for NUMA emulation > which has existed for x86_64 for at least over four years. I see. Yeah, I should have actually read the patchset before talking about it. > I agree that unification is in our best interest but the patches as they > sit in x86/numa right now actually fix real bugs when using numa=fake on > the command line and adding i386 NUMA emulation is an additional feature I'm not really arguing against you and as said before the patches were fine given the current state of the code, but I still want to point out that it's through these mostly innocent series of changes which build upon existing complications which eventually lead to unsustainable pile of mess. No one is particularly wrong but then again none does what really needs to be done. > (and the unification that can be done in the meantime would only be the > actual apicid-to-node and pxm-to-node mappings after it is exported from > amd and acpi specific functions), so I'd prefer to handle cleanups as > incremental patches on top of those. The problem is that those "incremental" patches often don't happen once the itch is gone while the immediate fixes/improvements aggravate existing complications. If you were/are planning to clean it up, I have nothing to whine about. :-) Thanks. -- tejun