Hello Srikar,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:08:35PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Node id queried from the static device tree may not
> be correct. For example: it may always show 0 on a shared processor.
> Hence prefer the node id queried from vphn and fallback on the device tree
> based node id if vphn query fails.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christopher Lameter <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changelog v1:->v2:
> - Rebased to v5.7-rc3
>
> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index b3615b7fdbdf..281531340230 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -719,20 +719,20 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
> */
> for_each_present_cpu(i) {
> struct device_node *cpu;
> - int nid;
> -
> - cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> - BUG_ON(!cpu);
> - nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> - of_node_put(cpu);
> + int nid = vphn_get_nid(i);
>
> /*
> * Don't fall back to default_nid yet -- we will plug
> * cpus into nodes once the memory scan has discovered
> * the topology.
> */
> - if (nid < 0)
> - continue;
> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> + cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> + if (cpu) {
Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?
> + nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> + of_node_put(cpu);
> + }
> + }
Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
should we still call node_set_online() below ?
> node_set_online(nid);
> }
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
