Re: [PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocationapis

[Santosh Shilimkar]

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




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/