From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:46:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <529F5C55.1020707@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204160730.GQ3158@htj.dyndns.org>
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
>> this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and
>> actually should be done in a separate series. As commented, the best
>> time to do that would be when all remaining architectures moves to
>> memblock.
>>
>> Just to give you perspective, look at the patch end of the email which
>> Grygorrii cooked up. It doesn't cover all the users of MAX_NUMNODES
>> and we are bot even sure whether the change is correct and its
>> impact on the code which we can't even tests. I would really want to
>> avoid touching all the architectures and keep the scope of the series
>> to core code as we aligned initially.
>>
>> May be you have better idea to handle this change so do
>> let us know how to proceed with it. With such a invasive change the
>> $subject series can easily get into circles again :-(
>
> But we don't have to use MAX_NUMNODES for the new interface, no? Or
> do you think that it'd be more confusing because it ends up mixing the
> two?
The issue is memblock code already using MAX_NUMNODES. Please
look at __next_free_mem_range() and __next_free_mem_range_rev().
The new API use the above apis and hence use MAX_NUMNODES. If the
usage of these constant was consistent across bootmem and memblock
then we wouldn't have had the whole confusion.
It kinda really bothers me this patchset is expanding the usage
> of the wrong constant with only very far-out plan to fix that. All
> archs converting to nobootmem will take a *long* time, that is, if
> that happens at all. I don't really care about the order of things
> happening but "this is gonna be fixed when everyone moves off
> MAX_NUMNODES" really isn't good enough.
>
Fair enough though the patchset continue to use the constant
which is already used by few memblock APIs ;-)
If we can fix the __next_free_mem_range() and __next_free_mem_range_rev()
to not use MAX_NUMNODES then we can potentially avoid the wrong
usage of constant.
regards,
Santosh
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-04 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-03 2:27 [PATCH v2 00/23] mm: Use memblock interface instead of bootmem Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 01/23] mm/memblock: debug: correct displaying of upper memory boundary Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 02/23] mm/memblock: debug: don't free reserved array if !ARCH_DISCARD_MEMBLOCK Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 22:52 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-04 14:58 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 03/23] mm/bootmem: remove duplicated declaration of __free_pages_bootmem() Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 22:53 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 04/23] mm/memory_hotplug: remove unnecessary inclusion of bootmem.h Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 22:54 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 05/23] mm/staging: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 06/23] mm/char: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 22:55 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-04 14:57 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 07/23] mm/memblock: drop WARN and use SMP_CACHE_BYTES as a default alignment Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 22:58 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 23:24 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-04 15:54 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-04 16:07 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-04 16:46 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2013-12-05 13:12 ` Grygorii Strashko
2013-12-05 16:59 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-05 17:13 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2014-01-11 0:53 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-11 0:59 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-05 16:35 ` Grygorii Strashko
2013-12-05 16:53 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-05 18:48 ` Strashko, Grygorii
2013-12-05 18:51 ` Tejun Heo
2013-12-05 20:34 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-06 14:52 ` Grygorii Strashko
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 09/23] mm/init: Use memblock apis for early memory allocations Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 10/23] mm/printk: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 11/23] mm/page_alloc: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 12/23] mm/power: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 13/23] mm/lib/swiotlb: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 14/23] mm/lib/cpumask: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 15/23] mm/sparse: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 16/23] mm/hugetlb: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 17/23] mm/page_cgroup: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 18/23] mm/percpu: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 19/23] mm/memory_hotplug: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 20/23] mm/firmware: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 21/23] mm/ARM: kernel: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 22/23] mm/ARM: mm: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 2:27 ` [PATCH v2 23/23] mm/ARM: OMAP: " Santosh Shilimkar
2013-12-03 22:48 ` [PATCH v2 00/23] mm: Use memblock interface instead of bootmem Tejun Heo
2013-12-04 14:56 ` Santosh Shilimkar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=529F5C55.1020707@ti.com \
--to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox