On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 14:01 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:35:26PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > So unless i'm missing something, I should be able to completely remove > > lmb's reliance on that nid_range() callback and instead have lmb itself > > use the various early_node_map[] accessors such as > > for_each_active_range_index_in_nid() or similar. > > > If you do this then you will also be coupling LMB with > ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP, which the nid_range() callback offers an > alternative for (although since there aren't any architectures presently > using LMB that don't also set ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP perhaps this is > ok). The nobootmem stuff also has a reliance on the early node map > already. Right, my tentative implementation indeed requires ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP for lmb_alloc_nid() to be available (I even documented it). Do you see that as a limitation in the long run ? > > If not, then I should be able to easily make that whole LMB numa thing > > completely arch neutral. > > > I've just started sorting out some of the LMB/NUMA bits on SH now as > well, so I'd certainly be interested in any changes on top of Yinghai's > work you're planning on doing. I'm not sure I plan to change things on -top- of Yinghai work. I'm still maintaining a patch series that is rooted before Yinghai current one, as I very very much dislike pretty much everything in there. Though I plan to provide all the functionality he needs for his x86 port and NO_BOOTMEM implementation. I'll post my WIP series later today after I got a chance to do some tests. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>