From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758226AbcHaCae (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:30:34 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:8283 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752194AbcHaCac (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:30:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/14] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed To: Will Deacon References: <1472024693-12912-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <1472024693-12912-6-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20160826124746.GB30302@arm.com> <57C15560.6020702@huawei.com> <20160830175115.GL24906@arm.com> CC: Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel , Rob Herring , "Frank Rowand" , devicetree , Zefan Li , Xinwei Hu , Tianhong Ding , Hanjun Guo From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" Message-ID: <57C640FC.7060703@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:29:16 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160830175115.GL24906@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.23.164] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.57C64108.0106,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-05-26 15:14:31, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 8fc5085be849ac69b4db374d1431d095 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016/8/31 1:51, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:54:56PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: >> >> >> On 2016/8/26 20:47, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:44PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >>>> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration >>>> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific >>>> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the >>>> testing branch. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >>>> index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >>>> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) >>>> if (ret < 0) >>>> return ret; >>>> >>>> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) >>>> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) { >>>> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n"); >>>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> Hmm, but dummy_numa_init calls node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) for a >>> completely artificial setup, created by adding all memblocks to node 0, >>> so this new message will be suppressed even though things really did go >>> wrong. >> It will be printed by the former: numa_init(of_numa_init) > > Does that print an error for every possible failure case? What about the > acpi path? I think acpi path should print error by itself. The reason maybe: 1. In numa_init and its sub function, all error paths printed error immediately, except arm64_acpi_numa_init. 2. Suppose numa_init returns error, we do not print the returned error code, so the user don't known what problem cause acpi numa failed. > >>> In that case, don't we want to print *something* (like we do today in >>> dummy_numa_init) but maybe not "No NUMA configuration found"? What >>> exactly do you find inaccurate about the current message? >> For example: >> [ 0.000000] NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map >> [ 0.000000] No NUMA configuration found >> >> So if of_numa_init or arm64_acpi_numa_init returned error, because of >> some numa configuration error had been found, it's no good to print "No >> NUMA ...". > > Sure, I'm all for changing the message. I just think removing it is > probably unhelpful. Something like: > > "NUMA: Failed to initialise from firmware" I think adding this into arm64_acpi_numa_init will be better, maybe we should print 'ret' further: int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void) { int ret; ret = acpi_numa_init(); if (ret) { + pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n"); return ret; } > > might do the trick? > > Will > > . >