Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:49:40 +0000 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu nodes |
| |
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 11:24:49AM +0800, 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. > > Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com> > --- > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > index 5fe44b3..4cddfeb 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > @@ -250,20 +250,34 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity); > #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV) > static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node) > { > - struct device_node *cpu_node; > + struct device_node *cpu_node, *t; > int cpu; > + bool found = false; > > cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0); > if (!cpu_node) > - return -1; > + return -EINVAL; > + > + for_each_of_cpu_node(t) > + if (t == cpu_node) { > + found = true; > + break; > + } > + > + if (!found) { > + pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node); > + return -EINVAL; > + } >
The whole extra logic added above sounds redundant, details below...
> cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node); > if (cpu >= 0) > topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu); > - else > - pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node); > + else { > + pr_warn("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n", > + cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask)); > + cpu = -ENODEV;
.. of_cpu_node_to_id returns -ENODEV anyways so above assignment is also redundant. All you achieved is explicit error message. I think we should be fine combining them. Just extend existing error log with both message.
> + } > > - of_node_put(cpu_node); > return cpu; > } > > @@ -287,10 +301,13 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id, > cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id; > cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i; > } else { > - pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n", > - t); > + if (cpu != -ENODEV) > + pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n", > + t); > + else > + cpu = 0;
I would rather use another variable instead of reusing 'cpu'
> of_node_put(t); > - return -EINVAL; > + return cpu;
Shouldn't we continue here if cpu == -ENODEV instead of returning 0 ?
> } > of_node_put(t); > } > @@ -307,7 +324,7 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id, > > cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id; > cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id; > - } else if (leaf) { > + } else if (leaf && cpu != -ENODEV) {
I am still not sure on the approach, it is based on -ENODEV as valid error and allow to continue. It may be fine, I just need to make sure.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |