From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDF36B01EF for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Numa: Use Generic Per-cpu Variables for numa_*_id() From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <4BCA7A26.9040208@kernel.org> References: <20100415172950.8801.60358.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <4BCA7A26.9040208@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:20 -0400 Message-Id: <1271683760.10937.35.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , andi@firstfloor.org, Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , David Rientjes , eric.whitney@hp.com, Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:19 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 04/16/2010 02:29 AM, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > Use Generic Per cpu infrastructure for numa_*_id() V4 > > > > Series Against: 2.6.34-rc3-mmotm-100405-1609 > > Other than the minor nitpicks, the patchset looks great to me. > Through which tree should this be routed? If no one else is gonna > take it, I can route it through percpu after patchset refresh. Andrew has merged this set into the -mm tree. I think that's fine and will proceed to address all of the comments there as incremental patches. I have comments/requests from yourself: 2/8: seconding Christoph's suggestion re: generic function to add generic function to set per cpu node id; plus suggestion to use numa_node_id() in common.c::cpu_init(). 4/8: lose the "#define numa_mem numa_node". I'll need to rework this. Currently, one can access the per cpu variable 'numa_node' directly as such. I added 'numa_mem' [actually got it from Christoph's starter patch] as an analog to numa_node. I/Christoph wanted to eliminate the redundant variable when it wasn't needed, but not break code that directly accesses it. Maybe better to not provide it at all? 5/8: wording error in patch description. Randy D and Kamezawa-san: comments on documentation patch Kame-san: request for clarification in 3/8 Thanks, Lee -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org