On 10/08/2014 02:11 PM, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> On 10/08/2014 10:57 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>> node = adf_get_dev_node_id(pdev);
>> ^^^ I don't think you should ever make this call. IMO it is wrong to do it
>> that
>> way. Just stick with
>>
>> node = dev_to_node(&pdev->dev)
>>
>> as the line below forces a default to that anyway.
>
> But then how do I know which node I'm physically connected to?
The pci_dev maps to the bus which maps to a numa node. The pci_dev's numa value
is copied directly from the bus (or busses depending on how deep it is).
I'd argue (strongly) that the pci_dev's numa ID better be correct o/w that is a
FW bug (and a bad one at that these days).
dev_to_node() should return the correct value.
>>
>>>> + if (node != dev_to_node(&pdev->dev) && dev_to_node(&pdev->dev) > 0) {
>>>> + /* If the accelerator is connected to a node with no memory
>>>> + * there is no point in using the accelerator since the remote
>>>> + * memory transaction will be very slow. */
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid NUMA configuration.\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>> Hmm ... I wonder if it would be safe to do
>>
>> /* force allocations to node 0 */
>> node = 0;
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid NUMA configuration detected, node id = %d .
>> Defaulting node to 0. \n",
>> node);
>>
>> and then continue?
>
> As the comment say there is no point continuing if the configuration is
> wrong. Defaulting to 0 will cause the same panic you pointed out in your
> first patch if node 0 has no memory.
Okay, but at least fix up the warning message to output the node_id. That's
sort of the important piece here.
P.
>
>>
>> And maybe even a FW_WARN of some sort here might be appropriate to indicate
>> that
>> something is wrong with the mapping? In any case a better error message is a
>> always good idea IMO.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
