On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > > index 71b11d9..6af873a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > > @@ -707,11 +707,9 @@ void __init_memblock __next_free_mem_range(u64 *idx,
> > > int nid,
> > > struct memblock_type *rsv = &memblock.reserved;
> > > int mi = *idx & 0xffffffff;
> > > int ri = *idx >> 32;
> > > - bool check_node = (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (nid != MAX_NUMNODES);
> > >
> > > - if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> > > - pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n",
> > > - __func__);
> > > + if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is
> > > deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
> > > + nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > >
> > > for ( ; mi < mem->cnt; mi++) {
> > > struct memblock_region *m = &mem->regions[mi];
> >
> > Um, why do this at runtime? This is only used for
> > for_each_free_mem_range(), which is used rarely in x86 and memblock-only
> > code. I'm struggling to understand why we can't deterministically fix the
> > callers if this condition is possible.
> >
>
>
> Unfortunately, It's not so simple as from first look :(
> We've modified __next_free_mem_range_x() functions which are part of
> Memblock APIs (like memblock_alloc_xxx()) and Nobootmem APIs.
> These APIs are used as directly as indirectly (as part of callbacks from other
> MM modules like Sparse), as result, it's not trivial to identify all places
> where MAX_NUMNODES will be used as input parameter.
>
These functions are only used for for_each_free_mem_range() and
for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(). I can very easily find which callers
are passing MAX_NUMNODES deterministically.
NACK to doing this at runtime.
--
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>