On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:08 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:22 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > If this patch fixes it, then why is numa_max_node() returning 1 on a 2
>> > node system?
>>
>> Because the node ids are 0 and 1 :-)
>>
>> Patch makes sense to me. In particular, both test/migrate_pages.c and
>> test/mbind_mig_pages.c have "nr_nodes = numa_max_node()+1;" in them.
>>
>
> Patch makes no sense to me if there's no node 0.
yes, one more bug(likely), if no nodes, this function should return
-1, but it returns 0.
for no nodes case, if function returns -1, then +1 makes sense for all cases.
--- libnuma.c.orig 2014-09-17 08:58:21.119671188 +0530
+++ libnuma.c 2014-09-17 08:59:14.731333190 +0530
@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@
d = opendir("/sys/devices/system/node");
if (!d) {
- maxconfigurednode = 0;
+ maxconfigurednode = -1;
} else {
while ((de = readdir(d)) != NULL) {
int nd;
thanks
Ganapat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
