Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:05:21 +0000 | From | Daniel J Blueman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove wrong error message in x86_default_fixup_cpu_id |
| |
On 21/02/2012 10:27, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:17:05PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > It's only called from amd.c:srat_detect_node(). The introduced > condition for calling the fixup code is true for all AMD multi-node > processors, e.g. Magny-Cours and Interlagos. There we have 2 NUMA > nodes on one socket. And thus there are cores having different > numa-node-id but with equal phys_proc_id. For example on such a system > we now get > > [ 0.228109] Booting Node 0, Processors #1 > [ 0.232337] smpboot cpu 1: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.252088] #2 > [ 0.253746] smpboot cpu 2: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.272086] #3 > [ 0.276018] smpboot cpu 3: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.296088] #4 > [ 0.297745] smpboot cpu 4: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.316088] #5 > [ 0.320021] smpboot cpu 5: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.340113] Ok. > [ 0.342324] Booting Node 1, Processors #6 > [ 0.344344] smpboot cpu 6: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 > [ 0.372110] #7 > [ 0.373771] smpboot cpu 7: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 > [ 0.396104] #8 > [ 0.397764] smpboot cpu 8: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 > [ 0.420109] #9 > [ 0.421773] smpboot cpu 9: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 > [ 0.444113] #10 > [ 0.445865] smpboot cpu 10: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 > [ 0.468111] #11 > [ 0.472030] smpboot cpu 11: start_ip = 83000 > [ 0.016000] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 > > These NUMA core numbering error messages are plain wrong. > > The confusing/misleading error message was introduced with commit > 64be4c1c2428e148de6081af235e2418e6a66dda (x86: Add x86_init platform > override to fix up NUMA core numbering) and should be removed. > > Reported-by: Borislav Petkov<borislav.petkov@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann<andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > BTW, I wonder why the fixup code isn't called from the Intel path. At > least the mentioned patch suggests that something more generic was > introduced here. > Right, and I would remove the check in amd.c:srat_detect_node() instead > of removing the printk statement in the default implementation. > > IOW, we need more info on why the check was added only to the AMD path? > Daniel?
The check and fixup wasn't needed in the Intel path thus far, so wasn't added.
We could specialise the 'if (c->phys_proc_id != node)' test to check for x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id being NULL and drop the default override, if that is preferred?
Thanks, Daniel
-- Daniel J Blueman Principal Software Engineer, Numascale Asia
| |