From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DA7C43215 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6F4620733 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:39:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C6F4620733 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DzwG33rjzF7K9 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:39:10 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47Dzt26X4szF4Zj for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 00:37:11 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xAFDUvKC029940 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:37:08 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w9jttc6fq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:37:08 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:37:06 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:37:03 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xAFDb2Y161800536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:37:02 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B21711C052; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:37:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D72711C058; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:07:00 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Early node associativity References: <20190913110945.12564-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87eezvjafs.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <87pnivimlb.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pnivimlb.fsf@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19111513-0008-0000-0000-0000032F4C8A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19111513-0009-0000-0000-00004A4E5F6D Message-Id: <20191115133700.GB21514@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-15_04:2019-11-15,2019-11-15 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911150121 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Nathan Lynch , Abdul Haleem , Satheesh Rajendran , linuxppc-dev , Nicholas Piggin Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Hi Michael, > Nathan Lynch writes: > > Srikar Dronamraju writes: > >> Abdul reported a warning on a shared lpar. > >> "WARNING: workqueue cpumask: online intersect > possible intersect". > >> This is because per node workqueue possible mask is set very early in the > >> boot process even before the system was querying the home node > >> associativity. However per node workqueue online cpumask gets updated > >> dynamically. Hence there is a chance when per node workqueue online cpumask > >> is a superset of per node workqueue possible mask. > > > > Sorry for the delay in following up on these. The series looks good to > > me, and I've given it a little testing with LPM and DLPAR. I've also > > verified that the cpu assignments occur early as intended on an LPAR > > where that workqueue warning had been triggered. > > If this is applied I think we can remove about 500 loc from numa.c. Once > splpar cpu-node assignments are done in the same sequence as with > dedicated processor mode, numa_update_cpu_topology() and related code > becomes unneeded. Since its 2 months since version 5 was posted and more than a month since Nathan added his reviewed-by, can you please let us know if there is any reason why this patchset has not been applied yet. Or do let me know if have any further comments. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju