Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled

[Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 16:33 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/27/19 3:13 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 14:42 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/27/19 1:24 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 12:24 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > Since commit 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe
> > > > > to cover serialization and NUMA affinity"), running the test with NUMA
> > > > > disabled results in warning messages similar to the following.
> > > > > 
> > > > > test_async_driver test_async_driver.12: NUMA node mismatch -1 != 0
> > > > > 
> > > > > If CONFIG_NUMA=n, dev_to_node(dev) returns -1, and numa_node_id()
> > > > > returns 0. Both are widely used, so it appears risky to change return
> > > > > values. Augment the check with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) instead
> > > > > to fix the problem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Fixes: 57ea974fb871 ("driver core: Rewrite test_async_driver_probe to cover serialization and NUMA affinity")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c | 3 ++-
> > > > >    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > > > index f4b1d8e54daf..3bb7beb127a9 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/test/test_async_driver_probe.c
> > > > > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int test_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > >    	 * performing an async init on that node.
> > > > >    	 */
> > > > >    	if (dev->driver->probe_type == PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS) {
> > > > > -		if (dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> > > > > +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
> > > > > +		    dev_to_node(dev) != numa_node_id()) {
> > > > >    			dev_warn(dev, "NUMA node mismatch %d != %d\n",
> > > > >    				 dev_to_node(dev), numa_node_id());
> > > > >    			atomic_inc(&warnings);
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure that is really the correct fix. It might be better to test it
> > > > against NUMA_NO_NODE and then if it is not that make sure that it matches
> > > > the node ID. Adding the check against NUMA_NO_NODE would resolve the issue
> > > > for cases where the device might be assigned to multiple NUMA nodes.
> > > > 
> > > I think you are suggesting that dev_to_node(dev) might return NUMA_NO_NODE
> > > even on systems with CONFIG_NUMA enabled. I have no idea if that can happen.
> > > The code in test_async_probe_init() seems to suggest that the node is set
> > > to a valid node id for all asynchronous nodes, so I don't immediately see
> > > how that could be the case. I may be missing something, of course.
> > 
> > Well thinking back to the Nehalem architecture I seem to recall that there
> > were devices that were connected to a shared IOH that was accessible
> > across both nodes. I thought that they might have a node ID of
> > NUMA_NO_NODE since they didn't really belong to either of the two nodes in
> > the sytem.
> > 
> > It would effectively work out the same as your patch compiler wise since
> > dev_to_node would be NUMA_NO_NODE in the non-NUMA case so it would compile
> > out the warning since it would fail the first check, and in the NUMA case
> > it would add an extra check to make sure that dev_to_node is actually
> > indicating the device needs a specific node in the NUMA enabled case.
> > 
> 
> I thought the code is specifically checking devices which it previously
> created, which are well defined and understood test devices. After all,
> the check is in the test driver's probe function. Guess I really don't
> understand the code. Please take my patch as bug report, and submit
> whatever fix you think is correct.

Sorry I had overlooked that this is the test code.

I suppose it should be fine since we specify the node ID for all instances
where we register an asychronous test device.

Thanks.

- Alex