[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:55:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, rth@...ddle.net, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
mattst88@...il.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@...c.org, davem@...emloft.net, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
paul.burton@...s.com, jhogan@...nel.org, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
chenhc@...ote.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, cai@....pw,
robin.murphy@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, dledford@...hat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
tbogendoerfer@...e.de, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 01:58:16PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> According to Section 6.2.14 from ACPI spec 6.3 [1], the setting
> of proximity domain is optional, as below:
>
> This optional object is used to describe proximity domain
> associations within a machine. _PXM evaluates to an integer
> that identifies a device as belonging to a Proximity Domain
> defined in the System Resource Affinity Table (SRAT).
That's just words.. what does it actually mean?
> This patch checks node id with the below case before returning
> node_to_cpumask_map[node]:
> 1. if node_id >= nr_node_ids, return cpu_none_mask
> 2. if node_id < 0, return cpu_online_mask
> 3. if node_to_cpumask_map[node_id] is NULL, return cpu_online_mask
>
> [1] https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_final_Jan30.pdf
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h | 6 ++++++
> arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
> index 4b14d23..f36e9c8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
> @@ -69,6 +69,12 @@ extern const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node);
> /* Returns a pointer to the cpumask of CPUs on Node 'node'. */
> static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> {
> + if (node >= nr_node_ids)
> + return cpu_none_mask;
> +
> + if (node < 0 || !node_to_cpumask_map[node])
> + return cpu_online_mask;
> +
> return node_to_cpumask_map[node];
> }
> #endif
I _reallly_ hate this. Users are expected to use valid numa ids. Now
we're adding all this checking to all users. Why do we want to do that?
Using '(unsigned)node >= nr_nods_ids' is an error.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> index e6dad60..5e393d2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> @@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> dump_stack();
> return cpu_none_mask;
> }
> - if (node_to_cpumask_map[node] == NULL) {
> + if (node < 0 || !node_to_cpumask_map[node]) {
> printk(KERN_WARNING
> "cpumask_of_node(%d): no node_to_cpumask_map!\n",
> node);
> --
> 2.8.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists