Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm: Use raw_cpu ops for determining current NUMA node

2013-10-16 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > NAK; smp_processor_id() has the preemption checks; for consistently > numa_node_id() should have them too, for the very same reason. Who's to > say the node id is still valid when you return from this function? If > we're preemptable we could've just b

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm: Use raw_cpu ops for determining current NUMA node

2013-10-16 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:47:25PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Index: linux/include/linux/topology.h > === > --- linux.orig/include/linux/topology.h 2013-09-24 11:29:51.0 > -0500 > +++ linux/include/linux/topology.

[PATCH 3/6] mm: Use raw_cpu ops for determining current NUMA node

2013-10-15 Thread Christoph Lameter
With the preempt checking logic for __this_cpu_ops we will get false positives from locations in the code that use numa_node_id. Before the __this_cpu ops where introduced there were no checks for preemption present either. smp_raw_processor_id() was used. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-n

[PATCH 3/6] mm: Use raw_cpu ops for determining current NUMA node

2013-10-11 Thread Christoph Lameter
With the preempt checking logic for __this_cpu_ops we will get false positives from locations in the code that use numa_node_id. Before the __this_cpu ops where introduced there were no checks for preemption present either. smp_raw_processor_id() was used. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-n