Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751527AbWCXC7N (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:59:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751528AbWCXC7N (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:59:13 -0500 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:30948 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751526AbWCXC7M (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:59:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:28:34 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Question on build_sched_domains Message-ID: <20060324025834.GD8903@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 799 Lines: 21 Nick, I was going thr' build_sched_domains and had a question regarding formation of sched_groups for NUMA nodes. There are two 'for' loops, each loop possibly allocating memory (sched_group) for one or more nodes. My question is: in the outer loop, don't we need to skip allocating for nodes for whom the inner loop has allocated in an earlier pass? Taking the example of 4 node system which are in the same sched_domain_node_span(), I see that we end up allocating 16 times (when 4 would have sufficed?). What am I missing here? -- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/