From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: guohanjun@huawei.com (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:26:53 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/numa: fix incorrect print of end_pfn
In-Reply-To: <20161020125511.GG10234@leverpostej>
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>
 <20161020125511.GG10234@leverpostej>
Message-ID: <5808C61D.4010101@huawei.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 2016/10/20 20:55, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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 <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> 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 [<memoryless node>]" would be far
> more obvious as a memoryless node, and I don't see that this would be
> inconsistent.

I misunderstood Will's intention, I though printing "NUMA: memory-less node 2".
so do you mean code like below?

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 34415fc..bf4e39b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -226,8 +226,11 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
        void *nd;
        int tnid;
 
-   pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-           nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+ if ((end_pfn - start_pfn) != 0)
+         pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
+                 start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+ else
+         pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [<memory-less node>]\n", nid);
 
        nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
        nd = __va(nd_pa);

Thanks
Hanjun