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?
> @@ -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.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
