From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754971AbZJPGfA (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:35:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754673AbZJPGe6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:34:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:49361 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753824AbZJPGe5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:34:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:34:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Robin Holt Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jack Steiner , Cliff Whickman Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] x86, UV: fixups for configurations with a large number of nodes. Message-ID: <20091016063405.GB20388@elte.hu> References: <20091015223959.783988000@alcatraz.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091015223959.783988000@alcatraz.americas.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Robin Holt wrote: > We need the __uv_hub_info structure to contain the correct values for > n_val, gpa_mask, and lowmem_remap_*. The first patch in the series > accomplishes this. Could this be included in the stable tree as well. > Without this patch, booting a large configuration hits a problem where > the upper bits of the gnode affect the pnode and the bau will not > operate. i've applied this one. > The second patch cleans up the broadcast assist unit code a small bit. Seems to be more than just a 'cleanup'. It changes: uv_nshift = uv_hub_info->m_val; to (in essence): uv_hub_info->m_val & ((1UL << uv_hub_info->n_val) - 1) which is not the same. Furthermore, the new inline is: + return gpa >> uv_hub_info->m_val & ((1UL << uv_hub_info->n_val) - 1); note that >> has higher priority than bitwise & - is that intended? I think the intention was: + return gpa >> (uv_hub_info->m_val & ((1UL << uv_hub_info->n_val) - 1)); in any case please do that cleaner by adding a separate mask variable. Ingo