Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node!

[Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>]

>>>
>>> [    0.170435] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [    0.170450] WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:324
>>> topology_sane.isra.2+0x71/0x84()
>>> [    0.170452] Hardware name: S2600CP
>>> [    0.170454] sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same
>>> node! [node: 1 != 0]. Ignoring dependency.
>>> [    0.156000] smpboot: Booting Node   1, Processors  #1
>>> [    0.170455] Modules linked in:
>>> [    0.170460] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.8.0+ #1
>>> [    0.170461] Call Trace:
>>> [    0.170466]  [<ffffffff810597bf>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
>>> [    0.170473]  [<ffffffff810598b6>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50
>>> [    0.170477]  [<ffffffff816cc752>] topology_sane.isra.2+0x71/0x84
>>> [    0.170482]  [<ffffffff816cc9de>] set_cpu_sibling_map+0x23f/0x436
>>> [    0.170487]  [<ffffffff816ccd0c>] start_secondary+0x137/0x201
>>> [    0.170502] ---[ end trace 09222f596307ca1d ]---
>
> that commit is totally broken, and it should be reverted.
>
> 1. numa_init is called several times, NOT just for srat. so those
>     nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed)
>     memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo))
> can not be just removed.
> please consider sequence is: numaq, srat, amd, dummy.
> You need to make fall back path working!
>
> 2. simply split acpi_numa_init to early_parse_srat.
> a. that early_parse_srat is NOT called for ia64, so you break ia64.
> b.  for (i = 0; i<  MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++)
>       set_apicid_to_node(i, NUMA_NO_NODE)
> still left in numa_init. So it will just clear result from early_parse_srat.
> it should be moved before that....
>
> 3. that patch TITLE is total misleading, there is NO x86 in the title,
> but it changes
> to x86 code.
>
> 4, it does not CC to TJ and other numa guys...

Hi Yinghai, Don,

OK, I see this. I'll fix it soon. :)

Thanks. :)