On 2017/11/29 21:01, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 29-11-17 20:41:25, zhong jiang wrote: >> On 2017/11/29 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Wed 29-11-17 17:13:27, zhong jiang wrote: >>>> Currently, Arm64 and x86 use the common code wehn parsing numa node >>>> in a acpi way. The arm64 will set the parsed node in numa_add_memblk, >>>> but the x86 is not set in that , then it will result in the repeatly >>>> setting. And the parsed node maybe is unreasonable to the system. >>>> >>>> we would better not set it although it also still works. because the >>>> parsed node is unresonable. so we should skip related operate in this >>>> node. This patch just set node in various architecture individually. >>>> it is no functional change. >>> I really have hard time to understand what you try to say above. Could >>> you start by the problem description and then how you are addressing it? >> I am so sorry for that. I will make the issue clear. >> >> Arm64 get numa information through acpi. The code flow is as follows. >> >> arm64_acpi_numa_init >> acpi_parse_memory_affinity >> acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init >> numa_add_memblk(nid, start, end); //it will set node to numa_nodes_parsed successfully. >> node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed); // numa_add_memblk had set that. it will repeat. >> >> the root cause is that X86 parse numa also go through above code. and arch-related >> numa_add_memblk is not set the parsed node to numa_nodes_parsed. it need >> additional node_set(node, numa_parsed) to handle. therefore, the issue will be introduced. >> > No it is not much more clear. I would have to go and re-study the whole > code flow to see what you mean here. So you could simply state what _the > issue_ is? How can user observe it and what are the consequences? The patch do not fix a real issue. it is a cleanup. because the acpi code is public, I find they are messy between Arch64 and X86 when parsing numa message . therefore, I try to make the code more clear between them. Thanks zhongjiang > Sorry for my laziness, I could go and read the code but the primary > point of the changelog is to be _clear_ about the problem and the fix. > Call paths can help reviewers but the scope should be clear even without > them. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
