From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756223Ab1D3MRk (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:17:40 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:62654 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752604Ab1D3MRj (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:17:39 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=t+jm2gBJiWKJJUh0N4kr6uY72GKmzx6q3TL/9cPibmA4z13Q9m1t9W5Q9mNNd1GR+b irva67weI65BzdfYIOtQvnU0EeXsr5Npwei/1qVJg7aHjPdP33TPC/YTn2G/NcuE9KKc NTh64xZj7FJu6ncY2FZOI41pi3dwtOawMolu0= Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:17:34 +0200 From: Tejun Heo To: Yinghai Lu Cc: mingo@redhat.com, rientjes@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET tip] x86, NUMA: Unify 32 and 64bit NUMA initialization Message-ID: <20110430121734.GF29280@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1304090924-8197-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4DBB1C16.3070307@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DBB1C16.3070307@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Yinghai. Nice catch, but, On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:14:14PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > [PATCH] x86, numa: Trim numa meminfo correctly > > During testing 32bit numa unifying code from tj, found one system with more than 64g > fail to use numa. > > It turn out we do not trim that numa meminfo correctly with max_pfn. > start could be bigger than 64g too. > > Also need to make the checking in seperated loop. Why? Isn't all that necessary the following? --- arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: work/arch/x86/mm/numa.c =================================================================== --- work.orig/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ work/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct n bi->end = min(bi->end, high); /* and there's no empty block */ - if (bi->start == bi->end) { + if (bi->start >= bi->end) { numa_remove_memblk_from(i--, mi); continue; }