On 10/14/16 17:01, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Maybe the code I > tried to analyze in this email was never *meant* to associate CPU#0 with > any NUMA node at all (not even node 0); instead, other code -- for > example code removed by 7ba5f605f3a0 -- was meant to perform that > association.
Staring a bit more at the code, this looks very likely; in acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface() we have > /* Check if GICC structure of boot CPU is available in the MADT */ > if (cpu_logical_map(0) == hwid) { > if (bootcpu_valid) { > pr_err("duplicate boot CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n", > hwid); > return; > } > bootcpu_valid = true; > return; > } which means that this callback function (for parsing the GICC structures in the MADT) expects to find the boot processor as well. Upon finding the boot processor, we set bootcpu_valid to true, and that's it -- no association with any NUMA node, and no incrementing of "cpu_count". Thanks Laszlo