From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820F8C19F28 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2D640A91; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2C2D640A91 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=siddh.me header.i=code@siddh.me header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zmail header.b=aCGxjGgu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zEJebkHjcGOF; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010:104::8cd3:938]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02E3A40A8B; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 02E3A40A8B Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBFDC0033; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C171EC002D for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A100940A91 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org A100940A91 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVhHQC6kwXoE for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 4D3C840A8C Received: from sender-of-o53.zoho.in (sender-of-o53.zoho.in [103.117.158.53]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3C840A8C for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:58:35 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1659517103; cv=none; d=zohomail.in; s=zohoarc; b=Z0C1RFtHhWVL38VXioPhEM9PPXQDeSm2BDZOVRVGojx6UymDi/ZUoEg/9UlUSIi8g46xDsAVg3Wogu/iGCelF+aWVZgdR30N2JlZVoWe0d7g9IZEbw8HknkaCjZS/WUf9xENkOYap7Kid2PxtROalZuz9xImGkscEjCgzYGXK/w= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.in; s=zohoarc; t=1659517103; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=UWM3Q8d65CxhgoPYwJTl/FGjavrP+S1bO4WDYI0LZmM=; b=W1ZXKcqpJWvXzse0uYPyMk5Wbt9n5kgRL/CVobzc02368p5EC0Ah11Wp88I6dQluMagaIz4YapLyoKV4I92lJKghTxunvVTR7ciVfMNZTYGJTZrhddT9YrFsVYVxEqNoANNhdj+Cq8NcBSExPI+hLofdFE4yO4jASvWPZLYwIZc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.in; dkim=pass header.i=siddh.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=code@siddh.me; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1659517103; s=zmail; d=siddh.me; i=code@siddh.me; h=Date:Date:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=UWM3Q8d65CxhgoPYwJTl/FGjavrP+S1bO4WDYI0LZmM=; b=aCGxjGguCX3vmghCE0g7WVP1LHmEMjvjiTKUyp/oqsYrIKb3ZJNjNRLgT+oM4CoJ rWMDVAwlOrhZwXBzDi0MRaLxBoGofBlWCY+U+51CCIwe+hrxMUUzFVdUFsrOuwCpAcw 54wHQHb2HtbY4dhL/2oz06j/DHLsiwL0BnUp6/mc= Received: from mail.zoho.in by mx.zoho.in with SMTP id 1659517084780174.63182416015275; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:28:04 +0530 (IST) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:28:04 +0530 To: "Ingo Molnar" Message-ID: <18262ed2459.44b0d74d434377.3690496800292832933@siddh.me> In-Reply-To: References: <20220731160913.632092-1-code@siddh.me> <1825f63b142.8968bde3116633.1242410031840350968@siddh.me> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/numa: Use cpumask_available instead of hardcoded NULL check MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Cc: Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , x86 , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel-mentees X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Siddh Raman Pant via Linux-kernel-mentees Reply-To: Siddh Raman Pant Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:18:18 +0530 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > > > On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 16:37:44 +0530 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Your fix makes sense I suppose, but I'm wondering how testing didn't > > > trigger this warning. > > > > > > Off-stack isn't a rare config option: > > > > > > kepler:~/tip> make allmodconfig > > > # > > > # No change to .config > > > # > > > kepler:~/tip> grep CPUMASK_OFFSTACK .config > > > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y > > > kepler:~/tip> > > > > > > What am I missing? > > > > Maybe this triggers on certain config options set, or maybe due to new > > gcc version? (I'm using gcc-12, I also likely saw while on gcc-11.) > > It nevertheless is a helpful warning. > > > > I just now tried `make defconfig` (default configuration based on > > 'x86_64_defconfig') and compiling with `make -j13 all`, and gcc doesn't > > give any warning. (CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK isn't even listed in the > > .config file produced, grep fails.) > > Does 'allmodconfig' reproduce the warning for you: > > $ make allmodconfig > $ make arch/x86/mm/numa.o > > ? > > If yes, then this could be due to gcc-12, as it doesn't reproduce with > gcc-11 for me: > > gcc version 11.2.0 (Ubuntu 11.2.0-19ubuntu1) > > Thanks, > > Ingo > There is no reason why allmodconfig would trigger the warning, as it has CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y, but the warning is because of the other case. Still, I tried that, and as expected there was no warning. Did you try the config file I had linked to earlier? Thanks, Siddh _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E560C19F28 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 08:59:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235207AbiHCI72 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2022 04:59:28 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52984 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231495AbiHCI70 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2022 04:59:26 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o53.zoho.in (sender-of-o53.zoho.in [103.117.158.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D1B32251E for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1659517103; cv=none; d=zohomail.in; s=zohoarc; b=Z0C1RFtHhWVL38VXioPhEM9PPXQDeSm2BDZOVRVGojx6UymDi/ZUoEg/9UlUSIi8g46xDsAVg3Wogu/iGCelF+aWVZgdR30N2JlZVoWe0d7g9IZEbw8HknkaCjZS/WUf9xENkOYap7Kid2PxtROalZuz9xImGkscEjCgzYGXK/w= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.in; s=zohoarc; t=1659517103; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=UWM3Q8d65CxhgoPYwJTl/FGjavrP+S1bO4WDYI0LZmM=; b=W1ZXKcqpJWvXzse0uYPyMk5Wbt9n5kgRL/CVobzc02368p5EC0Ah11Wp88I6dQluMagaIz4YapLyoKV4I92lJKghTxunvVTR7ciVfMNZTYGJTZrhddT9YrFsVYVxEqNoANNhdj+Cq8NcBSExPI+hLofdFE4yO4jASvWPZLYwIZc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.in; dkim=pass header.i=siddh.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=code@siddh.me; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1659517103; s=zmail; d=siddh.me; i=code@siddh.me; h=Date:Date:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=UWM3Q8d65CxhgoPYwJTl/FGjavrP+S1bO4WDYI0LZmM=; b=aCGxjGguCX3vmghCE0g7WVP1LHmEMjvjiTKUyp/oqsYrIKb3ZJNjNRLgT+oM4CoJ rWMDVAwlOrhZwXBzDi0MRaLxBoGofBlWCY+U+51CCIwe+hrxMUUzFVdUFsrOuwCpAcw 54wHQHb2HtbY4dhL/2oz06j/DHLsiwL0BnUp6/mc= Received: from mail.zoho.in by mx.zoho.in with SMTP id 1659517084780174.63182416015275; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:28:04 +0530 (IST) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:28:04 +0530 From: Siddh Raman Pant To: "Ingo Molnar" Cc: "x86" , "Dave Hansen" , "Andy Lutomirski" , "Peter Zijlstra" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Borislav Petkov" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel" , "linux-kernel-mentees" Message-ID: <18262ed2459.44b0d74d434377.3690496800292832933@siddh.me> In-Reply-To: References: <20220731160913.632092-1-code@siddh.me> <1825f63b142.8968bde3116633.1242410031840350968@siddh.me> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/numa: Use cpumask_available instead of hardcoded NULL check MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Importance: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:18:18 +0530 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > > > On Tue, 02 Aug 2022 16:37:44 +0530 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Your fix makes sense I suppose, but I'm wondering how testing didn't > > > trigger this warning. > > > > > > Off-stack isn't a rare config option: > > > > > > kepler:~/tip> make allmodconfig > > > # > > > # No change to .config > > > # > > > kepler:~/tip> grep CPUMASK_OFFSTACK .config > > > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y > > > kepler:~/tip> > > > > > > What am I missing? > > > > Maybe this triggers on certain config options set, or maybe due to new > > gcc version? (I'm using gcc-12, I also likely saw while on gcc-11.) > > It nevertheless is a helpful warning. > > > > I just now tried `make defconfig` (default configuration based on > > 'x86_64_defconfig') and compiling with `make -j13 all`, and gcc doesn't > > give any warning. (CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK isn't even listed in the > > .config file produced, grep fails.) > > Does 'allmodconfig' reproduce the warning for you: > > $ make allmodconfig > $ make arch/x86/mm/numa.o > > ? > > If yes, then this could be due to gcc-12, as it doesn't reproduce with > gcc-11 for me: > > gcc version 11.2.0 (Ubuntu 11.2.0-19ubuntu1) > > Thanks, > > Ingo > There is no reason why allmodconfig would trigger the warning, as it has CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y, but the warning is because of the other case. Still, I tried that, and as expected there was no warning. Did you try the config file I had linked to earlier? Thanks, Siddh