On 2017/10/3 21:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 03-10-17 14:47:26, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:54:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 11:38:07 +0100 Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> When I executed numactl -H(which read >>>>> /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/cpumap >>>>> and display cpumask_of_node for each node), but I got different result on >>>>> X86 and arm64. For each numa node, the former only displayed online CPUs, >>>>> and the latter displayed all possible CPUs. Unfortunately, both Linux >>>>> documentation and numactl manual have not described it clear. >>>>> >>>>> I sent a mail to ask for help, and Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> >>>>> replied >>>>> that he preferred to print online cpus because it doesn't really make much >>>>> sense to bind anything on offline nodes. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leiz...@huawei.com> >>>>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/base/node.c | 12 ++++++++++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Which tree is this intended to go through? I'm happy to take it via arm64, >>>> but I don't want to tread on anybody's toes in linux-next and it looks like >>>> there are already queued changes to this file via Andrew's tree. >>> >>> I grabbed it. I suppose there's some small risk of userspace breakage >>> so I suggest it be a 4.15-rc1 thing? >> >> To be honest, I suspect the vast majority (if not all) code that reads this >> file was developed for x86, so having the same behaviour for arm64 sounds >> like something we should do ASAP before people try to special case with >> things like #ifdef __aarch64__. >> >> I'd rather have this in 4.14 if possible. > > Agreed! >
+1 -- Thanks! BestRegards
