From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:54:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: Ensure proper NUMA distance and possible map initialization Message-Id: <20210324115432.4102cd93d35a2edb1742dec7@linux-foundation.org> List-Id: References: <20210318130617.896309-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20210318130617.896309-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Valentin Schneider Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , debian-ia64 , John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Ingo Molnar , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Sergei Trofimovich , Anatoly Pugachev On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:06:17 +0000 Valentin Schneider wrote: > John Paul reported a warning about bogus NUMA distance values spurred by > commit: > > 620a6dc40754 ("sched/topology: Make sched_init_numa() use a set for the deduplicating sort") > > In this case, the afflicted machine comes up with a reported 256 possible > nodes, all of which are 0 distance away from one another. This was > previously silently ignored, but is now caught by the aforementioned > commit. > > The culprit is ia64's node_possible_map which remains unchanged from its > initialization value of NODE_MASK_ALL. In John's case, the machine doesn't > have any SRAT nor SLIT table, but AIUI the possible map remains untouched > regardless of what ACPI tables end up being parsed. Thus, !online && > possible nodes remain with a bogus distance of 0 (distances \in [0, 9] are > "reserved and have no meaning" as per the ACPI spec). > > Follow x86 / drivers/base/arch_numa's example and set the possible map to > the parsed map, which in this case seems to be the online map. > > Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/255d6b5d-194e-eb0e-ecdd-97477a534441@physik.fu-berlin.de > Fixes: 620a6dc40754 ("sched/topology: Make sched_init_numa() use a set for the deduplicating sort") > Reported-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider > --- > This might need an earlier Fixes: tag, but all of this is quite old and > dusty (the git blame rabbit hole leads me to ~2008/2007) > Thanks. Is this worth a cc:stable tag?