On 22.08.2014 [10:12:56 +0800], Li Zhong wrote:

On ???, 2014-08-21 at 08:45 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:

quoted

On 21.08.2014 [16:14:02 +0800], Li Zhong wrote:

quoted

With commit 2fabf084b, during boottime, cpu_numa_callback() is called
earlier(before their online) for each cpu, and verify_cpu_node_mapping()
uses cpu_to_node() to check whether siblings are in the same node. 

It skips the checking for siblings that are not online yet. So the only
check done here is for the bootcpu, which is online at that time. But
the per-cpu numa_node cpu_to_node() uses hasn't been set up yet (which
will be set up in smp_prepare_cpus()).

So I could see something like following reported:
[    0.000000] CPU thread siblings 1/2/3 and 0 don't belong to the same
node!

You mean you did see this, right? (as opposed to "could" based upon code
inspection or something)

Yes, I did see the warnings. Seems I didn't express it precisely in
English ...

quoted

quoted

As we don't actually do the checking during this early stage, so maybe
we could directly call numa_setup_cpu() in do_init_bootmem()?

Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <redacted>

Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <redacted>

Thank you for the review,

Zhong

quoted

quoted

---
 arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index d7737a5..9918c02 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c

@@ -1128,8 +1128,7 @@ void __init do_init_bootmem(void)
 	 * early in boot, cf. smp_prepare_cpus().
 	 */
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		cpu_numa_callback(&ppc64_numa_nb, CPU_UP_PREPARE,
-				  (void *)(unsigned long)cpu);
+		numa_setup_cpu((unsigned long)cpu);

This is a good change, thanks for catching it. I must have glossed over
those messages in my testing, my apologies!

Actually, thinking about this more, do you think it makes more sense to
do:

for_each_present_cpu(cpu) in this loop? That is, at boot, ensure all
present (but possibly offline) CPUs have their NUMA mapping set up. CPUs
that aren't present (but are possible) might trigger other warnings,
right? (e.g., the WARN_ON(1) in numa_setup_cpu)

-Nish