From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F325A1A0A72 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 07:13:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:13:21 -0600 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD80C38C8046 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s92LDImx7536958 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 21:13:18 GMT Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s92LDIpC028430 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:13:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:13:05 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Li Zhong Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] powerpc: Fix warning reported by verify_cpu_node_mapping() Message-ID: <20141002211305.GB12862@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1409132041-11890-1-git-send-email-zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1409132041-11890-1-git-send-email-zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Nathan Fontenot , paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ben & Michael, What's the status of these patches? Thanks, Nish On 27.08.2014 [17:33:59 +0800], Li Zhong wrote: > With commit 2fabf084b6ad ("powerpc: reorder per-cpu NUMA information's > initialization"), 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 saw 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(). > > Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan > Cc: Nathan Fontenot > 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); > } > } > > -- > 1.9.1 >