From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:55:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/numa: fix incorrect print of end_pfn In-Reply-To: <5808B6D1.809@huawei.com> References: <1476935576-59941-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1476935576-59941-2-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20161020105130.GD24914@arm.com> <5808B6D1.809@huawei.com> Message-ID: <20161020125511.GG10234@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:21:37PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/10/20 18:51, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:52:56AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> From: Hanjun Guo > >> > >> When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no > >> memory dimm on this memory controller), the print > >> for setup_node_data() is incorrect: > >> > >> NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff] > >> > >> It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is > >> no memory on that node. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to print something useful, like "memory-less > > node"? > > in the log, > > [ 0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x13fbffffff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x13fbffe500-0x13fbffffff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x1400000000-0x17fbffffff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfec500-0x17fbfedfff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfeaa00-0x17fbfec4ff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(2) on node 1 > [ 0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 3 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfe8f00-0x17fbfea9ff] > [ 0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(3) on node 1 > > if printing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000000]", Seeing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 []" would be far more obvious as a memoryless node, and I don't see that this would be inconsistent. Thanks, Mark.