[PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> I'll try to provide more technical details here.
> >> As Santosh mentioned in previous e-mails, it's not easy to simply
> >> get rid of using MAX_NUMNODES:
> >> 1) we introduce new interface memblock_allocX 
> >> 2) our interface uses memblock APIs __next_free_mem_range_rev()
> >>    and __next_free_mem_range()
> >> 3) __next_free_mem_range_rev() and __next_free_mem_range() use MAX_NUMNODES
> >> 4) _next_free_mem_range_rev() and __next_free_mem_range() are used standalone,
> >>    outside of our interface as part of *for_each_free_mem_range* or for_each_mem_pfn_range ..
> >>
> >> The point [4] leads to necessity to find and correct all places where memmblock APIs
> >> are used and where it's expected to get MAX_NUMNODES as input parameter.
> >> The major problem is that simple "grep" will not work, because memmblock APIs calls
> >> are hidden inside other MM modules and it's not always clear
> >> what will be passed as input parameters to APIs of these MM modules
> >> (for example sparse_memory_present_with_active_regions() or sparse.c).
> > 
> > Isn't that kinda trivial to work around?  Make those functions accept
> > both MAX_NUMNODES and NUMA_NO_NODE but emit warning on MAX_NUMNODES
> > (preferably throttled reasonably).  Given the history of API, we'd
> > probably want to keep such warning for extended period of time but
> > that's what we'd need to do no matter what.
> > 
> Looks a good idea.
> 
> >> As result, WIP patch, I did, and which was posted by Santosh illustrates
> >> the probable size and complexity of the change.
> > 
> > Again, I don't really mind the order things happen but I don't think
> > it's a good idea to spread misusage with a new API.  You gotta deal
> > with it one way or the other.
> > 
> >> Sorry, but question here is not "Do or not to do?", but rather 'how to do?",
> >> taking into account complexity and state of the current MM code.
> >> For example. would it be ok if I'll workaround the issue as in the attached patch?
> > 
> > Well, it's more of when.  It's not really a technically difficult
> > task and all I'm saying is it better be sooner than later.
> > 
> Fair enough. Based on your suggestion, we will try to see if
> we can proceed with 4) accepting both MAX_NUMNODES and NUMA_NO_NODE.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion.

So where do we now stand with this MAX_NUMNODES-vs-NUMA_NO_NODE mess? 
Is the conversion to NUMA_NO_NODE in current linux-next completed and
nicely tested?

Thanks.