On 23.01.16 17:39:23, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
>
> Rework numa_add_memblk() to update the parameter "u64 size"
> to "u64 end", this will make it consistent with x86 and
> can simplify the code later.
>
> Updates for arch/arm64/mm/numa.c should squash to core NUMA
> patches from Ganapat.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 12 ++++++------
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
> index 2f9e34b..aa6f3a3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ static int __init early_init_parse_memory_node(unsigned long node)
> pr_debug("NUMA-DT: base = %llx , node = %u\n",
> base, nid);
>
> - if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, size) < 0)
> + if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, base + size) < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index e974995..2b04b8a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -137,25 +137,25 @@ void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
> * numa_add_memblk - Set node id to memblk
> * @nid: NUMA node ID of the new memblk
> * @start: Start address of the new memblk
> - * @size: Size of the new memblk
> + * @end: End address of the new memblk
Apart from my earlier comment, this is not exactly correct and may
cause confussion. The implementation here defines:
size == end - start
which is different to struct resource, where:
resource_size(res) == res->end - res->start + 1
Thus, @end here is the first address outside of memblk.
This is one more argument for keeping @size here.
-Robert
> *
> * RETURNS:
> * 0 on success, -errno on failure.
> */
> -int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
> +int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> int ret;
>
> - ret = memblock_set_node(start, size, &memblock.memory, nid);
> + ret = memblock_set_node(start, (end - start), &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);
> + start, (end - 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);
> + start, (end - 1), nid);
> return ret;
> }
Hi Robert,
On 03/09/2016 08:27 PM, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 23.01.16 17:39:23, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
>>
>> Rework numa_add_memblk() to update the parameter "u64 size"
>> to "u64 end", this will make it consistent with x86 and
>> can simplify the code later.
>>
>> Updates for arch/arm64/mm/numa.c should squash to core NUMA
>> patches from Ganapat.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 12 ++++++------
>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
>> index 2f9e34b..aa6f3a3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
>> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ static int __init early_init_parse_memory_node(unsigned long node)
>> pr_debug("NUMA-DT: base = %llx , node = %u\n",
>> base, nid);
>>
>> - if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, size) < 0)
>> + if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, base + size) < 0)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> index e974995..2b04b8a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -137,25 +137,25 @@ void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
>> * numa_add_memblk - Set node id to memblk
>> * @nid: NUMA node ID of the new memblk
>> * @start: Start address of the new memblk
>> - * @size: Size of the new memblk
>> + * @end: End address of the new memblk
>
> Apart from my earlier comment, this is not exactly correct and may
> cause confussion. The implementation here defines:
>
> size == end - start
>
> which is different to struct resource, where:
>
> resource_size(res) == res->end - res->start + 1
>
> Thus, @end here is the first address outside of memblk.
>
> This is one more argument for keeping @size here.
I agree :)
I'm working on the new version and met the problem of no
definition for numa_add_memblk() and numa_set_distance()
on IA64, numa_set_distance() seems to easy to add one for
IA64, but numa_add_memblk() is not, this will the blocker
for moving functions to common place, what's your opinion
here?
Also I'm thinking to move all the code in arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
to the arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c to make the ACPI code in ARM64
self-contained, what do you think?
Thanks
Hanjun