On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:53:01AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:32:15 +0800
> He Chen <he.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
...
> > +static void validate_numa_distance(void)
> > +{
> > + int src, dst;
> > + bool is_asymmetrical = false;
> > +
> > + for (src = 0; src < nb_numa_nodes; src++) {
> > + for (dst = 0; dst < nb_numa_nodes; dst++) {
> ^^^ checks inside this loop are symmetric,
> is there any reason it wouldn't work wit previous variant
> 'dst = src'?
>
I am sorry I don't have a clear understanding about what you suggested
here. You mean we should check whether the table is symmetric in this
loop?
Regarding 'dst = src', it represents local distance, user would
omit setting it and we will fix it in complete_init_numa_distance. Did I
mistake something? Could you please explain in more detail? Thanks.
> > + if (numa_info[src].present && numa_info[dst].present) {
> we don't support sparse nodes, so this condition is always true
> and not needed as earlier code assures that all nodes upto nb_numa_nodes
> are present, greep for "numa: Node ID missing: %d"
> so you can remove this check in this func and in complete_init_numa_distance()
>
> > + if (numa_info[src].distance[dst] == 0 &&
> > + numa_info[dst].distance[src] == 0) {
> > + if (src != dst) {
> > + error_report("The distance between node %d and %d
> > is missing, "
> > + "please provide all unique node pair
> > distances.",
> > + src, dst);
> s/all unique node .../ at least one distance value between each nodes should
> be provided/
>
> or something like this
>
> > + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (((numa_info[src].distance[dst] != 0) &&
> > + (numa_info[dst].distance[src] != 0)) &&
> > + (numa_info[src].distance[dst] !=
> > + numa_info[dst].distance[src])) {
> > + is_asymmetrical = true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (is_asymmetrical) {
> > + for (src = 0; src < nb_numa_nodes; src++) {
> > + for (dst = 0; dst < nb_numa_nodes; dst++) {
> > + if (numa_info[src].present && numa_info[dst].present) {
> > + if ((src != dst) && (numa_info[src].distance[dst] ==
> > 0)) {
> > + error_report("At least one asymmetrical pair of "
> > + "distances is given, please provide
> > distances "
> > + "for both directions of all node pairs.");
> > + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void complete_init_numa_distance(void)
> > +{
> > + int src, dst;
> > +
> > + /* fixup NUMA distance by symmetric policy because if it is an
> > + * asymmtric distance table, it should be a complete table and there
> > + * would not be any missing distance except local node, which is
> > + * verified by validate_numa_distance above.
> > + */
> > + for (src = 0; src < nb_numa_nodes; src++) {
> > + for (dst = 0; dst < nb_numa_nodes; dst++) {
> > + if (numa_info[src].present && numa_info[dst].present) {
> > + if (numa_info[src].distance[dst] == 0) {
> > + if (src == dst) {
> > + numa_info[src].distance[dst] = NUMA_DISTANCE_MIN;
> > + } else {
> > + numa_info[src].distance[dst] =
> > numa_info[dst].distance[src];
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
...
