From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753438Ab1EAKUq (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2011 06:20:46 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:36560 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752747Ab1EAKUo (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2011 06:20:44 -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=CXEgZc9k40raxV/xOxDetzcJkH93rMh5V0qPYQgqE4Fu94+jTKVtqrOVpLJNF6E97Y bbIxAdqYxyv5v/Kx+qrqJo98d5lQwGBQIjIHspG/tMME425HvXZWYs7E9sxBqneSJ2tC nIeRCpmvrP8pxxtRRA94KEBarst1h5hYEDvBs= Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 12:20:40 +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: [PATCH] x86, NUMA: Fix empty memblk detection in numa_cleanup_meminfo() Message-ID: <20110501102040.GM29280@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1304090924-8197-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4DBB1C16.3070307@kernel.org> <20110430121734.GF29280@htj.dyndns.org> <20110430123330.GG29280@htj.dyndns.org> <4DBCACAA.2080902@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DBCACAA.2080902@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, On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 05:43:22PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > this one works too > but print out is some strange > on 512g system got: > > NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=8 > NUMA: Node 0 [0,a0000) + [100000,80000000) -> [0,80000000) > NUMA: Node 0 [0,80000000) + [100000000,1080000000) -> [0,1000000000) > > > first patch on 512g system got > NUMA: Node 0 [0,a0000) + [100000,80000000) -> [0,80000000) > NUMA: Node 0 [0,80000000) + [100000000,1000000000) -> [0,1000000000) > > still thinking first one is more clean. Yeah, I don't object to the change (it's easier to understand too) but it should be a separate patch because it's unrelated change to the fix itself. If you don't mind sending the splitting part separately, I'll put it on top of the patchset. Thanks. -- tejun