On 02/26/2016 10:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote: [...]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..604e886 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c @@ -0,0 +1,403 @@
[...]
+ +static int numa_off; +static int numa_distance_cnt; +static u8 *numa_distance; + +static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt) +{ + if (!opt) + return -EINVAL; + if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) { + pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off"); + numa_off = 1; + } + return 0; +} +early_param("numa", numa_parse_early_param);Curious, but when is this option actually useful?
Good point. I will remove that bit, it was used as an aid in debugging while bringing up the patch set.
+ +cpumask_var_t node_to_cpumask_map[MAX_NUMNODES]; +EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_to_cpumask_map); + +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS + +/* + * Returns a pointer to the bitmask of CPUs on Node 'node'. + */ +const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node) +{ + if (WARN_ON(node >= nr_node_ids)) + return cpu_none_mask; + + if (WARN_ON(node_to_cpumask_map[node] == NULL)) + return cpu_online_mask; + + return node_to_cpumask_map[node]; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpumask_of_node); + +#endif + +static void map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid) +{ + set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, nid); + if (nid >= 0) + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[nid]); +} + +static void unmap_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu) +{ + int nid = cpu_to_node(cpu); + + if (nid >= 0) + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[nid]); + set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE); +}How do you end up with negative nids this late in the game?
It might be possible with some of the hot plugging code. It is a little paranoia programming.
If you really don't like it, we can remove it.
+ +void numa_clear_node(unsigned int cpu) +{ + unmap_cpu_to_node(cpu);Why don't you just inline this function?
Good point, I will do that. [...]
+int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 size) +{ + int ret; + + ret = memblock_set_node(start, size, &memblock.memory, nid); + if (ret < 0) { + pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n", + start, (start + size - 1), nid); + return ret; + } + + node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed); + pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n", + start, (start + size - 1), nid); + return ret; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(numa_add_memblk);But this is marked __init... (and you've done this elsewhere in the patch too).
I will fix these.
Will
