From: Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
discuss@x86-64.org, vandrove@vc.cvut.cz,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86_64: Fix ACPI NUMA parsing
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:56:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1105567009.8266.11.camel@arrakis> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050112070130.GB532@wotan.suse.de>
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 23:01, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Fix SRAT NUMA parsing
>
> Fix fallout from the recent nodemask_t changes. The node ids assigned
> in the SRAT parser were off by one.
>
> I added a new first_unset_node() function to nodemask.h to allocate
> IDs sanely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
>
> Index: linux/arch/x86_64/mm/srat.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/mm/srat.c 2005-01-09 18:19:17.%N +0100
> +++ linux/arch/x86_64/mm/srat.c 2005-01-12 04:15:43.%N +0100
> @@ -20,17 +20,20 @@
>
> static struct acpi_table_slit *acpi_slit;
>
> -static DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_parsed, MAX_NUMNODES) __initdata;
> +static nodemask_t nodes_parsed __initdata;
> +static nodemask_t nodes_found __initdata;
> static struct node nodes[MAX_NUMNODES] __initdata;
> static __u8 pxm2node[256] __initdata = { [0 ... 255] = 0xff };
>
> static __init int setup_node(int pxm)
> {
> - if (pxm2node[pxm] == 0xff) {
> - if (num_online_nodes() >= MAX_NUMNODES)
> + unsigned node = pxm2node[pxm];
> + if (node == 0xff) {
> + if (nodes_weight(nodes_found) >= MAX_NUMNODES)
> return -1;
> - pxm2node[pxm] = num_online_nodes();
> - node_set_online(num_online_nodes());
> + node = first_unset_node(nodes_found);
> + node_set(node, nodes_found);
> + pxm2node[pxm] = node;
> }
> return pxm2node[pxm];
> }
This snippet looks incorrect because first_unset_node() can return
MAX_NUMNODES, which isn't a valid node number, nor is it valid to set a
bit >= MAX_NUMNODES in a nodemask. Although, this is init code, so
there shouldn't be other CPUs messing with the nodes_found mask at the
same time, and you do check that there are unset bits in nodes_found
before the first_unset_node() call, so I'm probably wrong. Is there any
reason you don't just do all these checks on node_online_map? ie:
if (nodes_weight(node_online_map) >= MAX_NUMNODES)
return -1;
node = first_unset_node(node_online_map);
node_set(node, nodes_found);
pxm2node[pxm] = node;
The extra nodes_found bitmask seems unnecessary? I like the idea of the
first_unset_node() function, though.
-Matt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-13 0:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-12 7:01 Andi Kleen
2005-01-12 21:56 ` Matthew Dobson [this message]
2005-01-12 22:00 ` Andi Kleen
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=1105567009.8266.11.camel@arrakis \
--to=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=vandrove@vc.cvut.cz \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®