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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59837C33CA9 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285A8207E0 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728885AbgAMPPc (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:15:32 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:40676 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726943AbgAMPPc (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:15:32 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281F011B3; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:15:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.194.46] (e113632-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.46]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23E713F68E; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:15:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: warn if NUMA configurations conflicts with lower layer To: Dietmar Eggemann , "Zengtao (B)" , Morten Rasmussen Cc: Sudeep Holla , Linuxarm , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <1577088979-8545-1-git-send-email-prime.zeng@hisilicon.com> <20191231164051.GA4864@bogus> <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AE1D3@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20200102112955.GC4864@bogus> <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AEB67@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AFCA0@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20200103114011.GB19390@bogus> <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340B31E9@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20200109104306.GA10914@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340BEDD6@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1a8f7963-97e9-62cc-12d2-39f816dfaf67@arm.com> <1fbe4475-363d-e800-8295-a1591d5e52d9@arm.com> From: Valentin Schneider Message-ID: <3b389423-4bc7-0706-660f-dbddf8445abd@arm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:15:28 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1fbe4475-363d-e800-8295-a1591d5e52d9@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13/01/2020 14:49, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > LGTM. This code detects the issue in cpu_coregroup_mask(), which is the > the cpumask function of the sched domain MC level struct > sched_domain_topology_level of ARM64's (and other archs) > default_topology[]. > I wonder how x86 copes with such a config error? > Maybe they do it inside their cpu_coregroup_mask()? > > > We could move validate_topology_spans() into the existing > > for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) > for_each_sd_topology(tl) > > loop in build_sched_domains() saving some code? > [...] Yeah that should work. Folks might want to gate it under SCHED_DEBUG, but that's another discussion.