LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	"sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu nodes
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 02:01:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340B85A4@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0bd0e87b-e1ad-79a4-d820-f234ec6960fa@arm.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 9:12 PM
> To: Zengtao (B); sudeep.holla@arm.com
> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
> nodes
> 
> On 07/01/2020 02:35, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@arm.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 2:42 AM
> >> To: Zengtao (B); sudeep.holla@arm.com
> >> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
> >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
> >> nodes
> >>
> >> On 02/01/2020 04:24, Zeng Tao wrote:
> >>> When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in the
> >> device
> >>> tree, the cpu node parsing will fail. And this is not reasonable for a
> >>> legal device tree configs.
> >>> In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
> >>
> >> Is this extra code really necessary?
> >>
> >> Currently you get warnings indicating that CONFIG_NR_CPUS is too
> small
> >> so you could correct the setup issue easily.
> >>
> >
> > Not only about warning messages, the problem is :
> > What we are expected to do if the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is too small? I think
> there
> > are two choices:
> > 1. Keep the dts parsing result, but skip the the CPU nodes whose id
> exceeds the
> > the CONFIG_NR_CPUS, and this is what this patch do.
> > 2. Just abort all the CPU nodes parsing, and using MPIDR to guess the
> topology,
> > and this is what the current code do.
> 
> Ah, you're referring to:
> 
> 530 void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
> 531 {
> ...
> 540         else if (of_have_populated_dt() && parse_dt_topology())
> 541 -->             reset_cpu_topology();
> 
> With my Juno example (6 Cpus in DT but CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4):
> 
> root@juno:~# dmesg | grep "\*\*\|mpidr"
> [    0.084760] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=1
> [    0.088706] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=2
> [    0.092592] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=0
> [    0.096550] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=3
> [    0.105578] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=-19
> [    0.116070] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=0
> [    0.120355] CPU0: cluster 1 core 0 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000100
> [    0.242465] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=1
> [    0.242471] CPU1: cluster 0 core 0 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000000
> [    0.286505] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=2
> [    0.286510] CPU2: cluster 0 core 1 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000001
> [    0.330631] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=3
> [    0.330637] CPU3: cluster 1 core 1 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000101
> 
> and with your patch:
> 
> root@juno:~# dmesg | grep "\*\*\|mpidr"
> [    0.084778] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=1
> [    0.088742] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=2
> [    0.092662] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=0
> [    0.096627] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=3
> [    0.107942] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=-19
> [    0.119429] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=-19
> [    0.123461] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=0
> [    0.243571] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=1
> [    0.287610] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=2
> [    0.331737] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=3
> 
> so we bail out of store_cpu_topology() since 'cpuid_topo->package_id !=
> -1'.
> 

Good, you got me. And I found this issue when I test the NUMA issue.
Thanks.

> > And i think choice 1 is better because:
> > 1. It's a legal dts, we should keep the same result whether
> CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> > too small or not.
> > 2. In the function of_parse_and_init_cpus, we just do the same way as
> choice 1.
> >
> > But i am open for the issue, any suggestions are welcomed.
> 
> [...]

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-08  2:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-02  3:24 Zeng Tao
2020-01-06 18:42 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-07  1:35   ` Zengtao (B)
2020-01-07 13:12     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-08  2:01       ` Zengtao (B) [this message]
2020-01-07 14:49 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-08  1:57   ` Zengtao (B)
2020-01-10 11:16     ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-11  2:03       ` Zengtao (B)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340B85A4@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com \
    --to=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --subject='RE: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu nodes' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).