Re: [PATCH 20/35] Use a pre-calculated value fornum_online_nodes()

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:

> I posted an amalgamation. Sorry for the cross-over mails but I wanted to
> get tests going before I fell asleep. They take a few hours to complete.
>
> > >  static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> > >  {
> > >  	__node_set(node, &node_states[state]);
> > > +	if (state == N_ONLINE)
> > > +		nr_online_nodes = num_node_state(N_ONLINE);
> > >  }
> >
> > That assumes uses of node_set_state N_ONLINE. Are there such users or are
> > all using node_set_online()?
> >
>
> node_set_online() calls node_set_state(node, N_ONLINE) so it should have
> worked out.

But this adds a surprising side effect to all uses of node_set_state.
Node_set_state is generating more code now.

> > if you want to check if the system could ever bring up a second node
> > (which would make the current optimization not viable) whereas
> > nr_online_nodes is the check for how many nodes are currently online.
> >
>
> I redid your patch to drop the nr_possible_nodes() because I couldn't convince
> myself it was correct in all cases and it isn't as important as avoiding
> num_online_nodes() in fast paths.

I was more thinking about getting the infrastructure right so that we can
avoid future hacks like the one in slab.

--
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/