[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170406182147.mwifrukq7ylczi6i@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:21:47 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, tj@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V2 2/2] x86/mm/numa: remove the
numa_nodemask_from_meminfo()
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:01:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:42:16PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Config is attached.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Looks like fake numa is the key.
>
> ...
>
> > NUMA: Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=0 to=1 distance=20 [ 0.000000] numa_register_memblks: numa_nodes_parsed: 0
> > numa_register_memblks: nid: 0
> > numa_register_memblks: nid: 1
> > numa_register_memblks: nid: 2
> > numa_register_memblks: nid: 3
>
> Yeah, the fake numa thing calls emu_setup_memblk() and that doesn't
> set numa_nodes_parsed to the number of fake numa nodes. And since with
> that "cleanup" which opened more work than it saved (btw, this is the
> last time I'm looking at crap like that) we got rid of the "enlarging"
> of the node mask to the actual nodes count and *that* blows up with
> numa_nodes_parsed having only node 0 in there.
>
> Long story short, something as trivial as this helps here:
Yep. Works for me.
Reported-and-tested-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists