[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190902125644.GQ2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:56:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: dalias@...c.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
linuxarm@...wei.com, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
paulus@...ba.org, hpa@...or.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
chenhc@...ote.com, will@...nel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, mpe@...erman.id.au, x86@...nel.org,
rppt@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, dledford@...hat.com,
mingo@...hat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, jhogan@...nel.org,
nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@...il.com, len.brown@...el.com,
gor@...ux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@....com,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, cai@....pw, luto@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, rth@...ddle.net,
axboe@...nel.dk, robin.murphy@....com, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, tbogendoerfer@...e.de, paul.burton@...s.com,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
davem@...emloft.net,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:25:24PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/9/2 15:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:46:51PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> On 2019/9/1 0:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >>> 1) because even it is not set, the device really does belong to a node.
> >>> It is impossible a device will have magic uniform access to memory when
> >>> CPUs cannot.
> >>
> >> So it means dev_to_node() will return either NUMA_NO_NODE or a
> >> valid node id?
> >
> > NUMA_NO_NODE := -1, which is not a valid node number. It is also, like I
> > said, not a valid device location on a NUMA system.
> >
> > Just because ACPI/BIOS is shit, doesn't mean the device doesn't have a
> > node association. It just means we don't know and might have to guess.
>
> How do we guess the device's location when ACPI/BIOS does not set it?
See device_add(), it looks to the device's parent and on NO_NODE, puts
it there.
Lacking any hints, just stick it to node0 and print a FW_BUG or
something.
> It seems dev_to_node() does not do anything about that and leave the
> job to the caller or whatever function that get called with its return
> value, such as cpumask_of_node().
Well, dev_to_node() doesn't do anything; nor should it. It are the
callers of set_dev_node() that should be taking care.
Also note how device_add() sets the device node to the parent device's
node on NUMA_NO_NODE. Arguably we should change it to complain when it
finds NUMA_NO_NODE and !parent.
---
drivers/base/core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index f0dd8e38fee3..2caf204966a0 100644
--- a/drivers/base/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -2120,8 +2120,16 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
dev->kobj.parent = kobj;
/* use parent numa_node */
- if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE))
- set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
+ if (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
+ if (parent)
+ set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+ else {
+ pr_err("device: '%s': has no assigned NUMA node\n", dev_name(dev));
+ set_dev_node(dev, 0);
+ }
+#endif
+ }
/* first, register with generic layer. */
/* we require the name to be set before, and pass NULL */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists