From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E0703BBCC for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717703401; cv=none; b=Hn47y9wPjhuEefbC2hA2n32UUOcf27zdpgdtiQXdjlO7/tiuWTTXUBO2nFp8Du2mAlCCNc3FGRc/3ZCPj76w6vScIUdNPjyOrCmd2IWvNMJ5DxYbRjnWbQJoliELCsUJopsT0B+dmmiXVej71zI7CvTmuRLddSpk/XyLpBuLL5k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717703401; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sKOr9mRXx0a4WKiNAnV+HI3LIk3H9FP9Tw9NowZ77cg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Uf6t8MJrLVfHdfRJUnm4HjhhIggZhNCbGQoiiIznGmMBiPZIX95ezF0scmw6/x9N6+8wKAmFNKqNZmPYkTkjr9p9l4ICU+iq9t/ntagePFOpGCoY3VaSFbae1R6C6pajACQxI9FHNCajBoXek8nBs3WCsvAEB50rKQlPOa8Cdu8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=YEPP/M/w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YEPP/M/w" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA801C2BD10; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:49:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1717703400; bh=sKOr9mRXx0a4WKiNAnV+HI3LIk3H9FP9Tw9NowZ77cg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YEPP/M/wak7joAX9X9Mq0XbdUTtgJEbhY2reGlqG5wnJGohVLLTCvQjzvEePy2JSf jPBYbYQvj+y5iwCA3Wwm01rKtv0+SupwHeFtfkWMY3GFaFzuPn2aHfIslfJ6WhF/RW zQwFhzKpXyEO6bok/JMT4j9VrVAxZtE/H6o54KI6grhmvWwOwVBWYRzZiWMX/HFrvE qBY67sr8B6U+O925KEfopMpFjT6MALM/aJ1OM6fYe5CQ7f4Xs7tJUcMLnDBVBU+2Ol 0+CN1XC1WiDb79TzZ8hQVGkDSR1lHQqWvI+lCBtBp7LwMk8PIlblF0fZxcywSAOs26 j0Z3YNG9oo+ew== Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:48:01 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Jan Beulich , Naresh Kamboju , open list , linux-mm , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Andrew Morton , Dan Carpenter , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: x86: WARNING: at mm/memblock.c:1339 memblock_set_node - Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead Message-ID: References: <315d6873-d618-4126-b67a-de62502d7ee2@paulmck-laptop> <7d55b65e-331a-4ce2-8f72-d3c5c9e6eae0@suse.com> <20c484a5-d797-4782-b5b5-bea5fcae9284@paulmck-laptop> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:04:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 07:19:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 08:13:17AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 05.06.2024 22:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:46:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> On 05.06.2024 21:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:19:21PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > >>>> The following kernel warnings are noticed on x86 devices while booting > > > >>>> the Linux next-20240603 tag and looks like it is expected to warn users to > > > >>>> use NUMA_NO_NODE instead. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The following config is enabled > > > >>>> CONFIG_NUMA=y > > > >>> > > > >>> I am seeing this as well. Is the following commit premature? > > > >>> > > > >>> e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES") > > > >>> > > > >>> Maybe old ACPI tables and device trees need to catch up? > > > >>> > > > >>> Left to myself, I would simply remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() from the above > > > >>> commit, but I would guess that there is a better way. > > > >> > > > >> Well, the warning is issued precisely to make clear that call > > > >> sites need to change. A patch to do so for the two instances > > > >> on x86 that I'm aware of is already pending maintainer approval. > > > > > > > > Could you please point me at that patch so that I can stop repeatedly > > > > reproducing those two particular issues? > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/abadb736-a239-49e4-ab42-ace7acdd4278@suse.com/ > > > > Thank you, Jan! > > > > A quick initial test shows that this clears things up. I have started > > a longer test to check for additional issues. But in the meantime > > for the issues I was already seeing in the initial test: > > > > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney > > And the longer test ran without errors as well, so again, thank you! > > Any chance of getting this into -next sooner rather than later? Should be there tomorrow. > Thanx, Paul -- Sincerely yours, Mike.