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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 77540C433B4 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 A97B9610E6 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:01:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A97B9610E6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FGXG41Whxz3bxg for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:01:32 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=KuXAXrTF; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=KuXAXrTF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (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 4FGXFY2n04z30BM for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:01:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 138JxPbZ099427; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:00:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=TnAleMvyumXa+sXW+bz9hhpNo3+lfh7b5sCaa4ciu1g=; b=KuXAXrTFHFrAduFMtrjKsKxKtqAB2/GwdSnXGLkwiSpsaw6MwRqcceGd3lKY/IdtJRWB F/5YgcpOc991F54bSUhE4/knys2Q01+zNISYO2K7hGmmV5eMERPCBTO3raLohEzr/JUH 4HlNNISYsEmcP+kqduosleRvBeXjE7+qIWaDn9W/OWeIbrRwJjuTpOYNilpQnycfUnI8 YsqkTJsH43HpVULA0Xxnu8s3IVI4juY/8qeJbGCAwJ50WG+jcLLpgpod2aVNyKrDSoQ1 m/zVuzfzAKmp2G658jbEWMguPtXZlEr9cGkW0rj8MjRZIT5ZxtKVc0OXgeGpqjstMUeG fw== Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37t8fm01hh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 16:00:40 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 138JpnVO023329; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:00:40 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37rw2pjvu6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 20:00:40 +0000 Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.236]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 138K0cGH30015800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:00:38 GMT Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1C3BE04F; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:00:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270D9BE058; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:00:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.211.35.170]) by b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:00:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc/smp: Set numa node before updating mask In-Reply-To: <20210408111150.GK2339179@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20210401154200.150077-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87czvdbova.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <20210402031815.GI2339179@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87eefml22p.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <20210407164930.GJ2339179@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <878s5tlvxr.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <20210408111150.GK2339179@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 15:00:37 -0500 Message-ID: <8735w0lf6i.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: BiWMl7_zebAu-qvq9BUChUTOb2iP23u4 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: BiWMl7_zebAu-qvq9BUChUTOb2iP23u4 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-08_04:2021-04-08, 2021-04-08 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104080129 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: , Cc: Gautham R Shenoy , Peter Zijlstra , Scott Cheloha , Geetika Moolchandani , Valentin Schneider , Laurent Dufour , linuxppc-dev , Ingo Molnar Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Srikar Dronamraju writes: > * Nathan Lynch [2021-04-07 14:46:24]: >> I don't know. I guess this question just makes me wonder whether powerpc >> needs to have the additional lookup table. How is it different from the >> generic per_cpu numa_node? > > lookup table is for early cpu to node i.e when per_cpu variables may not be > available. This would mean that calling set_numa_node/set_cpu_numa_node from > map_cpu_to_node() may not always be an option, since map_cpu_to_node() does > end up getting called very early in the system. Ah that's right, thanks.