Hi Qian,
On 7/16/19 12:11 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
On Thu, 2019-07-11 at 14:53 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Hi Maddy,
Madhavan Srinivasan <ma...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-imc.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-imc.c
index 186109bdd41b..e04b20625cb9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-imc.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-imc.c
@@ -69,20 +69,20 @@ static void export_imc_mode_and_cmd(struct device_node
*node,
if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cb_offset", &cb_offset))
cb_offset = IMC_CNTL_BLK_OFFSET;
- for_each_node(nid) {
- loc = (u64)(pmu_ptr->mem_info[chip].vbase) + cb_offset;
+ while (ptr->vbase != NULL) {
This means you'll bail out as soon as you find a node with no vbase, but
it's possible we could have a CPU-less node intermingled with other
nodes.
So I think you want to keep the for loop, but continue if you see a NULL
vbase?
Not sure if this will also takes care of some of those messages during the boot
on today's linux-next even without this patch.
[ 18.077780][ T1] debugfs: Directory 'imc' with parent 'powerpc' already
present!
This is introduced by a recent commit: c33d442328f55 (debugfs: make
error message a bit more verbose).
So basically, the debugfs imc_* file is created per node, and is created
by the first nest unit which is
being registered. For the subsequent nest units, debugfs_create_dir()
will just return since the imc_* file already
exist.
The commit "c33d442328f55 (debugfs: make error message a bit more
verbose)", prints
a message if the debugfs file already exists in debugfs_create_dir().
That is why we are encountering these
messages now.
This patch (i.e, powerpc/imc: Dont create debugfs files for cpu-less
nodes) will address the initial issue, i.e
"numa crash while reading imc_* debugfs files for cpu less nodes", and
will not address these debugfs messages.
But yeah this is a good catch. We can have some checks to avoid these
debugfs messages.
Hi Michael,
Do we need to have a separate patch to address these debugfs messages,
or can we address the same
in the next version of this patch itself?
Thanks,
Anju
