Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in device_add() | From | Yunsheng Lin <> | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:07:34 +0800 |
| |
On 2019/9/5 17:02, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 04:57:00PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2019/9/5 15:33, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 02:48:24PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>> On 2019/9/5 13:57, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:33:50AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>>>> Currently a device does not belong to any of the numa nodes >>>>>> (dev->numa_node is NUMA_NO_NODE) when the FW does not provide >>>>>> the node id and the device has not no parent device. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to discussion in [1]: >>>>>> Even if a device's numa node is not set by fw, the device >>>>>> really does belong to a node. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch sets the device node to node 0 in device_add() if >>>>>> the fw has not specified the node id and it either has no >>>>>> parent device, or the parent device also does not have a valid >>>>>> node id. >>>>>> >>>>>> There may be explicit handling out there relying on NUMA_NO_NODE, >>>>>> like in nvme_probe(). >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/2/466 >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/base/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++++--- >>>>>> include/linux/numa.h | 2 ++ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c >>>>>> index 1669d41..466b8ff 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c >>>>>> @@ -2107,9 +2107,20 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev) >>>>>> if (kobj) >>>>>> dev->kobj.parent = kobj; >>>>>> >>>>>> - /* use parent numa_node */ >>>>>> - if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE)) >>>>>> - set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent)); >>>>>> + /* use parent numa_node or default node 0 */ >>>>>> + if (!numa_node_valid(dev_to_node(dev))) { >>>>>> + int nid = parent ? dev_to_node(parent) : NUMA_NO_NODE; >>>>> >>>>> Can you expand this to be a "real" if statement please? >>>> >>>> Sure. May I ask why "? :" is not appropriate here? >>> >>> Because it is a pain to read, just spell it out and make it obvious what >>> is happening. You write code for developers first, and the compiler >>> second, and in this case, either way is identical to the compiler. >>> >>>>>> + >>>>>> + if (numa_node_valid(nid)) { >>>>>> + set_dev_node(dev, nid); >>>>>> + } else { >>>>>> + if (nr_node_ids > 1U) >>>>>> + pr_err("device: '%s': has invalid NUMA node(%d)\n", >>>>>> + dev_name(dev), dev_to_node(dev)); >>>>> >>>>> dev_err() will show you the exact device properly, instead of having to >>>>> rely on dev_name(). >>>>> >>>>> And what is a user to do if this message happens? How do they fix this? >>>>> If they can not, what good is this error message? >>>> >>>> If user know about their system's topology well enough and node 0 >>>> is not the nearest node to the device, maybe user can readjust that by >>>> writing the nearest node to /sys/class/pci_bus/XXXX/device/numa_node, >>>> if not, then maybe user need to contact the vendor for info or updates. >>>> >>>> Maybe print error message as below: >>>> >>>> dev_err(dev, FW_BUG "has invalid NUMA node(%d). Readjust it by writing to sysfs numa_node or contact your vendor for updates.\n", >>>> dev_to_node(dev)); >>> >>> FW_BUG? >> >> The sysfs numa_node writing interface does print FW_BUG error. >> Maybe it is a way of telling the user to contact the vendors, which >> pushing the vendors to update the FW. > > But is this always going to be caused by a firmware bug? If so, ok, if > not, and it's a driver/bus kernel issue, we should not say this.
Ok, Make sense. Will not add the FW_BUG printing.
> > thanks, > > greg k-h > > . >
| |