Re: [PATCH] ia64: Ensure proper NUMA distance and possible map initialization

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.ports.ia64,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.ia64
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi!

On 3/24/21 7:54 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:06:17 +0000 Valentin Schneider <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> John Paul reported a warning about bogus NUMA distance values spurred by
>> commit:
>>
>>   620a6dc40754 ("sched/topology: Make sched_init_numa() use a set for the deduplicating sort")
>>
>> In this case, the afflicted machine comes up with a reported 256 possible
>> nodes, all of which are 0 distance away from one another. This was
>> previously silently ignored, but is now caught by the aforementioned
>> commit.
>>
>> The culprit is ia64's node_possible_map which remains unchanged from its
>> initialization value of NODE_MASK_ALL. In John's case, the machine doesn't
>> have any SRAT nor SLIT table, but AIUI the possible map remains untouched
>> regardless of what ACPI tables end up being parsed. Thus, !online &&
>> possible nodes remain with a bogus distance of 0 (distances \in [0, 9] are
>> "reserved and have no meaning" as per the ACPI spec).
>>
>> Follow x86 / drivers/base/arch_numa's example and set the possible map to
>> the parsed map, which in this case seems to be the online map.
>>
>> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>> Fixes: 620a6dc40754 ("sched/topology: Make sched_init_numa() use a set for the deduplicating sort")
>> Reported-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> This might need an earlier Fixes: tag, but all of this is quite old and
>> dusty (the git blame rabbit hole leads me to ~2008/2007)
>>
> 
> Thanks.  Is this worth a cc:stable tag?

Looks like the regression was introduced 5.12-rc1, so no need for backporting.

Adrian
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.