From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
PowerPC email list <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH powerpc] Fix warning reported by verify_cpu_node_mapping()
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:12:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1408673576.2448.6.camel@TP420> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140821154529.GB10478@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 四, 2014-08-21 at 08:45 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 21.08.2014 [16:14:02 +0800], Li Zhong wrote:
> > 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!
>
> You mean you did see this, right? (as opposed to "could" based upon code
> inspection or something)
Yes, I did see the warnings. Seems I didn't express it precisely in
English ...
>
> >
> > 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 <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thank you for the review,
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);
>
> This is a good change, thanks for catching it. I must have glossed over
> those messages in my testing, my apologies!
>
> -Nish
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-22 2:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-21 8:14 [RFC PATCH powerpc] Fix warning reported by verify_cpu_node_mapping() Li Zhong
2014-08-21 15:45 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-08-22 2:12 ` Li Zhong [this message]
2014-08-22 22:04 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-08-25 6:01 ` Li Zhong
2014-08-25 7:22 ` [PATCH v2] powerpc: " Li Zhong
2014-08-26 13:10 ` Nathan Fontenot
2014-08-26 15:17 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-08-27 1:41 ` Li Zhong
2014-08-27 9:10 ` Li Zhong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1408673576.2448.6.camel@TP420 \
--to=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).