On Wed 29-11-17 21:26:19, zhong jiang wrote: > 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. So make this explicit in the changelog. Your previous wording sounded like there is a _problem_ in the code. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
