RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com
Cc: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>, Tang Chen <tangchen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx>, "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@xxxxxxxxx>, "Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@xxxxxxxxx>, "Vick, Matthew" <matthew.vick@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx>, "Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "x86@xxxxxxxxxx" <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-hotplug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-hotplug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: linux-mm-outgoing@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4197C471DCF8714FBA1FE32565271C148FFFF4D3@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote:

> Acked-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx>

Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption 
from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration?

--
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>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
  - From: Andrew Morton

References:
- [Patch V3 0/9] Enable memoryless node support for x86
  - From: Jiang Liu
- [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
  - From: Jiang Liu
- RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
  - From: Patil, Kiran

Prev by Date: Re: [Patch V3 3/9] sgi-xp: Replace cpu_to_node() with cpu_to_mem() to support memoryless node
Next by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory"
Previous by thread: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
Next by thread: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to better support memoryless node
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [ECOS] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]