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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=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 359CAC0650E for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:44:03 +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 7235521473 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:44:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7235521473 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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ctVm1jyLzDqX8 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:44:00 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.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 45ctTD6bDpzDqWw for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 02:42:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x61GZYTw054148; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:42:32 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tfmsgbure-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:42:31 -0400 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x61Gbe32060086; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:42:31 -0400 Received: from ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (fd.55.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.85.253]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tfmsgbuqx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 01 Jul 2019 12:42:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x61GYqjN012322; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:42:30 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by ppma01wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2tdym6g6d3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 01 Jul 2019 16:42:30 +0000 Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.110]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x61GgTKw52298226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:42:29 GMT Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2130AE060; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:42:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F95AE05F; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:42:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.41.179.236]) by b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:42:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: ["RFC PATCH" 1/2] powerpc/mm: Fix node look up with numa=off boot In-Reply-To: <1329fd62-c2ad-f2c9-d3df-731f543dd3ea@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190629083629.29037-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <1329fd62-c2ad-f2c9-d3df-731f543dd3ea@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:42:29 -0500 Message-ID: <87imslso3u.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-01_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907010200 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: Vaibhav Jain , paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, npiggin@gmail.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes: > I guess we should have here. > > modified arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > @@ -416,12 +416,11 @@ static int of_get_assoc_arrays(struct assoc_arrays > *aa) > static int of_drconf_to_nid_single(struct drmem_lmb *lmb) > { > struct assoc_arrays aa = { .arrays = NULL }; > - /* is that correct? */ > int default_nid = 0; > int nid = default_nid; > int rc, index; > > - if (!numa_enabled) > + if ((min_common_depth < 0) || !numa_enabled) > return NUMA_NO_NODE; > > rc = of_get_assoc_arrays(&aa); > > > Nathan, > > Can you check this? Looks like it would do the right thing. Just checking: do people still need numa=off? Seems like it's a maintenance burden :-)