From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, mpe@ellerman.id.au, x86@kernel.org,
rppt@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com,
mingo@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 08:55:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1567231103-13237-3-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
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@huawei.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
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
mattst88@gmail.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
mpe@ellerman.id.au, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@libc.org, davem@davemloft.net, ralf@linux-mips.org,
paul.burton@mips.com, jhogan@kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com,
chenhc@lemote.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, cai@lca.pw,
robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
len.brown@intel.com, axboe@kernel.dk, dledford@redhat.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tbogendoerfer@suse.de,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:55:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1567231103-13237-3-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
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@huawei.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
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, x86@kernel.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:55:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1567231103-13237-3-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
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@huawei.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
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, mpe@ellerman.id.au, x86@kernel.org,
rppt@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com,
mingo@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:55:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1567231103-13237-3-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
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@huawei.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
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
cai@lca.pw, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, mpe@ellerman.id.au, x86@kernel.org,
rppt@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com,
mingo@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, jhogan@kernel.org,
nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
axboe@kernel.dk, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, lin
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:55:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1567231103-13237-3-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
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@huawei.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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-31 8:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 164+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-31 5:58 [PATCH v2 0/9] check the node id consistently across different arches Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] arm64: numa: check the node id consistently for arm64 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 10:09 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-01 4:45 ` Something about loongson_llsc_mb 陈华才
[not found] ` <2019090410032559707512@loongson.cn>
2019-09-04 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-04 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-04 12:57 ` Huang Pei
2019-09-02 5:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86 Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 5:46 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:25 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 6:19 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 8:31 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-03 12:15 ` Salil Mehta
2019-09-03 12:15 ` Salil Mehta
2019-09-03 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-02 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-09-03 7:53 ` [PATCH] x86/mm: Fix cpumask_of_node() error condition Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-03 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] alpha: numa: check the node id consistently for alpha Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] powerpc: numa: check the node id consistently for powerpc Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] s390: numa: check the node id consistently for s390 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-09-02 4:05 ` kbuild test robot
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] sh: numa: check the node id consistently for sh Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] sparc64: numa: check the node id consistently for sparc64 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 6:53 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 8:57 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 20:02 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:08 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-09-02 15:17 ` David Miller
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] mips: numa: check the node id consistently for mips ip27 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 15:45 ` Paul Burton
2019-08-31 15:45 ` Paul Burton
2019-08-31 15:45 ` Paul Burton
2019-09-02 6:11 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:11 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-02 6:11 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] mips: numa: check the node id consistently for mips loongson64 Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-08-31 5:58 ` Yunsheng Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tbogendoerfer@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.