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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 D153DC4360C for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:42:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DB09206A1 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:42:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uhK6p65d" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2DB09206A1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46r1bg4hXWzDqfH for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 21:42:07 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uhK6p65d"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46r1YS1nGSzDqcw for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 21:40:09 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [84.241.192.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21836206A1; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:40:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1570876807; bh=Ct3kT+xNZzomUoOHSl3j9vFEqmUcJVCQgXZFn+esWOA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=uhK6p65dsNjpWKMlH5Z/S77VSw/OawTEefkJ5bFoty44O22zb9+HsdWkKCgOrZlvg z+O6ugk9vrUWQCU5tMgVYN0Ch1ZoRdmp5yrZdc06g1GsEaSH5pLBh4ruPiYQniHtaz zvh7nzRLwKHoWOCyO7ub91SuvQZ0wyayC1/4J9Uo= Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 12:40:01 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Yunsheng Lin Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware Message-ID: <20191012104001.GA2052933@kroah.com> References: <20190925104108.GE4553@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <47fa4cee-8528-7c23-c7de-7be1b65aa2ae@huawei.com> <20191010073212.GB18412@dhcp22.suse.cz> <6cc94f9b-0d79-93a8-5ec2-4f6c21639268@huawei.com> <20191011111539.GX2311@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <7fad58d6-5126-e8b8-a7d8-a91814da53ba@huawei.com> <20191012074014.GA2037204@kroah.com> <1e1ec851-b5e7-8f35-a627-4c12ca9c2d3c@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1e1ec851-b5e7-8f35-a627-4c12ca9c2d3c@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, Michal Hocko , 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, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, 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, mattst88@gmail.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, luto@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Robin Murphy , davem@davemloft.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 05:47:56PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > On 2019/10/12 15:40, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:17:26PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > >> add pci and acpi maintainer > >> cc linux-pci@vger.kernel.org and linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > >> > >> On 2019/10/11 19:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:27:54AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > >>>> But I failed to see why the above is related to making node_to_cpumask_map() > >>>> NUMA_NO_NODE aware? > >>> > >>> Your initial bug is for hns3, which is a PCI device, which really _MUST_ > >>> have a node assigned. > >>> > >>> It not having one, is a straight up bug. We must not silently accept > >>> NO_NODE there, ever. > >>> > >> > >> I suppose you mean reporting a lack of affinity when the node of a pcie > >> device is not set by "not silently accept NO_NODE". > > > > If the firmware of a pci device does not provide the node information, > > then yes, warn about that. > > > >> As Greg has asked about in [1]: > >> what is a user to do when the user sees the kernel reporting that? > >> > >> We may tell user to contact their vendor for info or updates about > >> that when they do not know about their system well enough, but their > >> vendor may get away with this by quoting ACPI spec as the spec > >> considering this optional. Should the user believe this is indeed a > >> fw bug or a misreport from the kernel? > > > > Say it is a firmware bug, if it is a firmware bug, that's simple. > > > >> If this kind of reporting is common pratice and will not cause any > >> misunderstanding, then maybe we can report that. > > > > Yes, please do so, that's the only way those boxes are ever going to get > > fixed. And go add the test to the "firmware testing" tool that is based > > on Linux that Intel has somewhere, to give vendors a chance to fix this > > before they ship hardware. > > > > This shouldn't be a big deal, we warn of other hardware bugs all the > > time. > > Ok, thanks for clarifying. > > Will send a patch to catch the case when a pcie device without numa node > being set and warn about it. > > Maybe use dev->bus to verify if it is a pci device? No, do that in the pci bus core code itself, when creating the devices as that is when you know, or do not know, the numa node, right? This can't be in the driver core only, as each bus type will have a different way of determining what the node the device is on. For some reason, I thought the PCI core code already does this, right? thanks, greg k-h