From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933005Ab3LDQqm (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:46:42 -0500 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:35015 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932708Ab3LDQqk (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:46:40 -0500 Message-ID: <529F5C55.1020707@ti.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:46:13 -0500 From: Santosh Shilimkar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: , , , Yinghai Lu , Andrew Morton , Grygorii Strashko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis References: <1386037658-3161-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1386037658-3161-9-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20131203232445.GX8277@htj.dyndns.org> <529F5047.50309@ti.com> <20131204160730.GQ3158@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20131204160730.GQ3158@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after >> this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and >> actually should be done in a separate series. As commented, the best >> time to do that would be when all remaining architectures moves to >> memblock. >> >> Just to give you perspective, look at the patch end of the email which >> Grygorrii cooked up. It doesn't cover all the users of MAX_NUMNODES >> and we are bot even sure whether the change is correct and its >> impact on the code which we can't even tests. I would really want to >> avoid touching all the architectures and keep the scope of the series >> to core code as we aligned initially. >> >> May be you have better idea to handle this change so do >> let us know how to proceed with it. With such a invasive change the >> $subject series can easily get into circles again :-( > > But we don't have to use MAX_NUMNODES for the new interface, no? Or > do you think that it'd be more confusing because it ends up mixing the > two? The issue is memblock code already using MAX_NUMNODES. Please look at __next_free_mem_range() and __next_free_mem_range_rev(). The new API use the above apis and hence use MAX_NUMNODES. If the usage of these constant was consistent across bootmem and memblock then we wouldn't have had the whole confusion. It kinda really bothers me this patchset is expanding the usage > of the wrong constant with only very far-out plan to fix that. All > archs converting to nobootmem will take a *long* time, that is, if > that happens at all. I don't really care about the order of things > happening but "this is gonna be fixed when everyone moves off > MAX_NUMNODES" really isn't good enough. > Fair enough though the patchset continue to use the constant which is already used by few memblock APIs ;-) If we can fix the __next_free_mem_range() and __next_free_mem_range_rev() to not use MAX_NUMNODES then we can potentially avoid the wrong usage of constant. regards, Santosh