On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > >> I'll try to provide more technical details here. > >> As Santosh mentioned in previous e-mails, it's not easy to simply > >> get rid of using MAX_NUMNODES: > >> 1) we introduce new interface memblock_allocX > >> 2) our interface uses memblock APIs __next_free_mem_range_rev() > >> and __next_free_mem_range() > >> 3) __next_free_mem_range_rev() and __next_free_mem_range() use MAX_NUMNODES > >> 4) _next_free_mem_range_rev() and __next_free_mem_range() are used standalone, > >> outside of our interface as part of *for_each_free_mem_range* or for_each_mem_pfn_range .. > >> > >> The point [4] leads to necessity to find and correct all places where memmblock APIs > >> are used and where it's expected to get MAX_NUMNODES as input parameter. > >> The major problem is that simple "grep" will not work, because memmblock APIs calls > >> are hidden inside other MM modules and it's not always clear > >> what will be passed as input parameters to APIs of these MM modules > >> (for example sparse_memory_present_with_active_regions() or sparse.c). > > > > Isn't that kinda trivial to work around? Make those functions accept > > both MAX_NUMNODES and NUMA_NO_NODE but emit warning on MAX_NUMNODES > > (preferably throttled reasonably). Given the history of API, we'd > > probably want to keep such warning for extended period of time but > > that's what we'd need to do no matter what. > > > Looks a good idea. > > >> As result, WIP patch, I did, and which was posted by Santosh illustrates > >> the probable size and complexity of the change. > > > > Again, I don't really mind the order things happen but I don't think > > it's a good idea to spread misusage with a new API. You gotta deal > > with it one way or the other. > > > >> Sorry, but question here is not "Do or not to do?", but rather 'how to do?", > >> taking into account complexity and state of the current MM code. > >> For example. would it be ok if I'll workaround the issue as in the attached patch? > > > > Well, it's more of when. It's not really a technically difficult > > task and all I'm saying is it better be sooner than later. > > > Fair enough. Based on your suggestion, we will try to see if > we can proceed with 4) accepting both MAX_NUMNODES and NUMA_NO_NODE. > > Thanks for the suggestion. So where do we now stand with this MAX_NUMNODES-vs-NUMA_NO_NODE mess? Is the conversion to NUMA_NO_NODE in current linux-next completed and nicely tested? Thanks. -- 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>