On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:58:36PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> -static int __init numa_check_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
>> +
>> +int __init numa_check_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
>> {
>> + nodemask_t tmp_node_map;
>> unsigned long pfn_align;
>>
>> /* Account for nodes with cpus and no memory */
>> - node_possible_map = numa_nodes_parsed;
>> - numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(&node_possible_map, mi);
>> - if (WARN_ON(nodes_empty(node_possible_map)))
>> + tmp_node_map = numa_nodes_parsed;
>> + numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(&tmp_node_map, mi);
>> + if (WARN_ON(nodes_empty(tmp_node_map)))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> if (!numa_meminfo_cover_memory(mi))
>> @@ -562,6 +564,7 @@ static int __init numa_check_memblks(struct numa_meminfo
>> *mi)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + node_possible_map = tmp_node_map;
>
> Hmmm.... it's kinda nasty to have a side effect like the above for a
> function named numa_check_memblks(). Maybe we can move this to the
> caller or name the function to make it clear that some global state is
> being updated?
ok, will split it out for node_possibe_map updating.
>
>> @@ -608,8 +611,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt);
>> -
>> ret = numa_check_memblks(&numa_meminfo);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>> @@ -669,6 +670,8 @@ void __init x86_numa_init(void)
>> numa_init(dummy_numa_init);
>>
>> out:
>> + numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt);
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
>> struct numa_memblk *mb = &mi->blk[i];
>> memblock_set_node(mb->start, mb->end - mb->start, mb->nid);
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
>> index dbbbb47..5a0433d 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c
>> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ void __init numa_emulation(struct numa_meminfo
>> *numa_meminfo, int numa_dist_cnt)
>> if (ret < 0)
>> goto no_emu;
>>
>> - if (numa_cleanup_meminfo(&ei) < 0) {
>> + if (numa_cleanup_meminfo(&ei) < 0 || numa_check_memblks(&ei) < 0) {
>> pr_warning("NUMA: Warning: constructed meminfo invalid,
>> disabling emulation\n");
>> goto no_emu;
>> }
>
> Given that acpi is the only mechanism which matters in any modern NUMA
> machines, I think the re-ordering should be fine.
Good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
