On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -1329,25 +1321,12 @@ numa_node_to_cpus_v2(int node, struct bitmask *buffer)
> > size_t len = 0;
> > struct bitmask *mask;
> >
> > - if (!node_cpu_mask_v2)
> > - init_node_cpu_mask_v2();
> > -
> > if (node > nnodes) {
> > errno = ERANGE;
> > return -1;
> > }
> > numa_bitmask_clearall(buffer);
> >
> > - if (node_cpu_mask_v2[node]) {
>
> I was playing around with info (http://fbinfer.com/) earlier, and ran it over
> numactl, and it complained about exactly this line: it can reference NULL
> when the memory allocation above fails. So it's good to remove it.
>
> Would be good to see how much performance difference it makes though.
> Do you have any data? If it's significant may need to do a time out
> or similar.
>
I did simple comparison for 1 million of numa_node_to_cpus() calls
and disabled caching extended time three times (from 10 seconds to 30).
--
Petr Holasek
pholasek@xxxxxxxxxx
--
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
