From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3289C1A00A2 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:14:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp11.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:14:08 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B75219005E for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:13:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.249]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s7L8E6Oh31457500 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:14:06 GMT Received: from d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s7L8E5xp014131 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:14:05 -0600 Message-ID: <1408608842.3003.20.camel@TP420> Subject: [RFC PATCH powerpc] Fix warning reported by verify_cpu_node_mapping() From: Li Zhong To: PowerPC email list Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:14:02 +0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Michael Ellerman , Nishanth Aravamudan , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , With commit 2fabf084b, during boottime, cpu_numa_callback() is called earlier(before their online) for each cpu, and verify_cpu_node_mapping() uses cpu_to_node() to check whether siblings are in the same node. It skips the checking for siblings that are not online yet. So the only check done here is for the bootcpu, which is online at that time. But the per-cpu numa_node cpu_to_node() uses hasn't been set up yet (which will be set up in smp_prepare_cpus()). So I could see something like following reported: [ 0.000000] CPU thread siblings 1/2/3 and 0 don't belong to the same node! As we don't actually do the checking during this early stage, so maybe we could directly call numa_setup_cpu() in do_init_bootmem()? Signed-off-by: Li Zhong --- arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c index d7737a5..9918c02 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c @@ -1128,8 +1128,7 @@ void __init do_init_bootmem(void) * early in boot, cf. smp_prepare_cpus(). */ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { - cpu_numa_callback(&ppc64_numa_nb, CPU_UP_PREPARE, - (void *)(unsigned long)cpu); + numa_setup_cpu((unsigned long)cpu); } }