linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	tglx@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:02:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110302190208.GD28266@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D6E91EC.6040906@kernel.org>

Hey, Yinghai.

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:52:28AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Complexity of a solution should match the benefit of the complexity.
> > Code complexity is one of the most important metrics that we need to
> > keep an eye on.  If you don't do that, the code base becomes very ugly
> > and difficult to maintain very quickly.  So, yes, some amount of
> > execution inefficiency is acceptable depending on circumstances.
> > Efficiency too is something which should be traded off against other
> > benefits.
> 
> No. it is not acceptable in your case.
> 
> We can accept that something like: during init stage, do some probe
> and call pathes to be happy.  like subarch.

Hmmm?  I can't really follow your sentence.  This is init stage.
Anyways, why can't it just walk over the enabled nodes?  What would be
the difference?

> Also why did you omit my first question?

Yeah, well, because that wasn't completely consistent with what I said
earlier.  I wanted to tell you to take the assignments out of if () on
your earlier patch but I just let it pass and now I had this another
patch touching the same code, so I just had to do it.

I know it's a petty style thing but it's my pet peeve and I can't help
it when related change goes through me, so there it is.  I'm sorry but
I'll probaly do it again.  I beg your understanding.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-02 19:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-24 14:51 [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] Tejun Heo
2011-02-24 14:52 ` [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] bootmem,x86: cleanup changes Tejun Heo
2011-02-24 19:08 ` [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] Yinghai Lu
2011-02-24 19:23   ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-24 19:28     ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-24 19:32       ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-24 19:46         ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-24 22:46           ` [patch] x86, mm: Fix size of numa_distance array David Rientjes
2011-02-24 23:30             ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-24 23:31             ` David Rientjes
2011-02-25  9:05               ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25  9:03             ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25 10:58               ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25 11:05                 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25  9:11             ` [PATCH x86-mm] x86-64, NUMA: " Tejun Heo
2011-03-01 17:18       ` [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] David Rientjes
2011-03-01 18:25         ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-01 22:19         ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02  9:17           ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:04         ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:07           ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-02 10:15             ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:36               ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-02 10:25           ` [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] " Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:39             ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Better explain numa_distance handling Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:42               ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 14:31                 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-02 14:30             ` [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling David Rientjes
2011-03-02 15:42               ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 21:12                 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 21:36                   ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-03 20:07                     ` David Rientjes
2011-03-04 14:32                       ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-03 20:04                   ` David Rientjes
2011-03-03 20:00                 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-04 15:31               ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Don't assume phys node 0 is always online in numa_emulation() handling Tejun Heo
2011-03-04 21:33                 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-05  7:50                   ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-05 15:50               ` [tip:x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Don't assume phys node 0 is always online in numa_emulation() tip-bot for Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 16:16             ` [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 16:37               ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 16:46                 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 16:55                   ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 18:52                     ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 19:02                       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-03-02 19:06                         ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 19:13                           ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 20:32                             ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 20:57                               ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 21:14                                 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-03  6:17                                   ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-10 18:46                                     ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11  8:29                                       ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11  8:33                                         ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 15:48                                           ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 15:54                                             ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 18:02                                               ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 18:19                                                 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 18:25                                                   ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 18:29                                                     ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 18:45                                                       ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11  9:31                                         ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Don't call numa_set_distanc() for all possible node combinations during emulation Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 15:42                                           ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 16:03                                             ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 19:05                                           ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 10:43           ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Ingo Molnar
2011-03-02 10:53             ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:59               ` Tejun Heo

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=20110302190208.GD28266@mtj.dyndns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=yinghai@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).