lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: numa: check the node id before accessing node_to_cpumask_map
On Fri 30-08-19 17:49:46, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/8/30 16:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 30-08-19 16:08:14, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
[...]
> >> It seems the cpumask_of_node with CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is used
> >> to catch the erorr case and give a warning to user when node id is not
> >> valid.
> >
> > Yeah the config help text
> > config DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS
> > bool "Debug access to per_cpu maps"
> > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
> > depends on SMP
> > help
> > Say Y to verify that the per_cpu map being accessed has
> > been set up. This adds a fair amount of code to kernel memory
> > and decreases performance.
> >
> > Say N if unsure.
> >
> > suggests that this is intentionally hidden behind a config so a normal
> > path shouldn't really duplicate it. If those checks make sense in
> > general then the config option should be dropped I think.
>
> It seems cpumask_of_node with CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS on may be used to
> debug some early use of cpumask_of_node problem, see below:
>
> /*
> * Allocate node_to_cpumask_map based on number of available nodes
> * Requires node_possible_map to be valid.
> *
> * Note: cpumask_of_node() is not valid until after this is done.
> * (Use CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS to check this.)
> */
> static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
> {
> int node;
>
> /* setup nr_node_ids if not done yet */
> if (nr_node_ids == MAX_NUMNODES)
> setup_nr_node_ids();
>
> /* allocate and clear the mapping */
> for (node = 0; node < nr_node_ids; node++) {
> alloc_bootmem_cpumask_var(&node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> cpumask_clear(node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> }
>
> /* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
> pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %u nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
> }
>
> So I prefer to keep it as two implementations for arm64 and x86, but
> ensure the two implementations be consistent. It can be cleaned up later
> when there is no use at all.
>
> Is it ok with you?

I am not really sure what you are asking here TBH. You want both
CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS implementations to use the same (duplicated) code?
If that is the case then no objections from me. I would obviously
preferred a shared code but that might be a larger change indeed and can
be done later.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-30 13:14    [W:0.048 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site