Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2012 14:38:09 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH resend] x86/platform: Remove incorrect error message in x86_default_fixup_cpu_id() |
| |
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:06:48PM +0200, 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. Thus there are cores having different > numa-node-id but with equal phys_proc_id. > > There is no point to print error messages in such a situation. > > The confusing/misleading error message was introduced with commit > 64be4c1c2428e148de6081af235e2418e6a66dda (x86: Add x86_init platform > override to fix up NUMA core numbering). > > Remove the default fixup function (especially the error message) and > replace it by a NULL pointer check, move the Numascale-specific > condition for calling the fixup into the fixup-function itself and > slightly adapt the comment. > > Cc: <stable@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h | 1 - > arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c | 7 +++++-- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 7 ++++--- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 9 --------- > arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c | 1 - > 5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > This patch didn't make it into v3.3. > But the misleading error message introduced with numachip support was > merged.
Yes, please apply this one, I still get the following on my box with 3.4-rc1+:
[ 0.382396] Booting Node 0, Processors #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Ok. [ 0.454471] Booting Node 1, Processors #6 [ 0.469600] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 [ 0.478361] #7 [ 0.490949] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 [ 0.499695] #8 [ 0.512577] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 [ 0.521331] #9 [ 0.533921] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 [ 0.542679] #10 [ 0.555340] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 [ 0.564088] #11 [ 0.576730] NUMA core number 1 differs from configured core number 0 [ 0.585497] Ok. [ 0.587698] Booting Node 3, Processors #12 [ 0.602916] NUMA core number 3 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.709432] #13 [ 0.722106] NUMA core number 3 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.730856] #14 [ 0.743823] NUMA core number 3 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.752577] #15 [ 0.765253] NUMA core number 3 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.774002] #16 [ 0.786684] NUMA core number 3 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.795436] #17 [ 0.808113] NUMA core number 3 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.816878] Ok. [ 0.819377] Booting Node 2, Processors #18 [ 0.834597] NUMA core number 2 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.843348] #19 [ 0.856025] NUMA core number 2 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.864777] #20 [ 0.877750] NUMA core number 2 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.886505] #21 [ 0.899180] NUMA core number 2 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.907939] #22 [ 0.920583] NUMA core number 2 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.929335] #23 Ok. [ 0.942785] NUMA core number 2 differs from configured core number 1 [ 0.951262] Brought up 24 CPUs
Thanks.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
| |