From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756721AbXGJEuu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:50:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751074AbXGJEun (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:50:43 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([209.217.80.40]:53388 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750917AbXGJEum (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:50:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:49:11 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Yinghai Lu , akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] try parent numa_node at first before using default Message-ID: <20070710044911.GB10748@kroah.com> References: <200707031835.l63IZo9K008197@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <200707031731.02456.yinghai.lu@sun.com> <20070710004416.GA6905@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:52:34PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Greg KH wrote: > > > > @@ -547,6 +547,8 @@ static void klist_children_put(struct klist_node *n) > > > > > > void device_initialize(struct device *dev) > > > { > > > + int node; > > > + > > > kobj_set_kset_s(dev, devices_subsys); > > > kobject_init(&dev->kobj); > > > klist_init(&dev->klist_children, klist_children_get, > > > @@ -557,7 +559,9 @@ void device_initialize(struct device *dev) > > > spin_lock_init(&dev->devres_lock); > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->devres_head); > > > device_init_wakeup(dev, 0); > > > - set_dev_node(dev, -1); > > > + > > > + node = dev->parent ? dev_to_node(dev->parent) : -1; > > > + set_dev_node(dev, node); > > > } > > > > What is this going to give us? > > > > Doesn't it mean that all devices will end up on the same node? > > It means that the node for the device is the same as the parent device. > F.e. if the parent device is a bus that is connected to node 4 then all > the devices hooked up to the bus are allocated on that node. Yes, but is someone setting the parent device node information properly? And this really needs some more changelog information please. Why is this needed from how things are done today? thanks, greg k-h