Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread Leizhen (ThunderTown) 


On 2016/5/27 1:12, David Daney wrote:
> The current patch to correct this problem is here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
> 
> Since v7 of the ACPI/NUMA patches are likely going to be added to linux-next 
> as soon as the current merge window ends, further simplifications of the 
> informational prints should probably be rebased on top of it.
> 
> David Daney
> 

>> On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:22 -0700, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> IIRC, it should be
>>> if (!numa_off)
>>> we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa 
>>> configuration.
>>> when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.
>>>

 +   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
>>


OK, I think I also missed some cases.

But my problem still have not been resolved by 
"https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679;, see below. I will update my patches base 
on it.


[0.00] NUMA: Adding memblock [0x0 - 0x6aff] on node 0
[0.00] NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map-v1
[0.00] NUMA: Warning: invalid memblk node 4 [mem 0x6b00-0x7fbf] 
//My numa configuration is incorrect, but not "No ... found"
[0.00] No NUMA configuration found  
//Above warning is very detail, this can be removed
[0.00] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 
0x-0x0017]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread Leizhen (ThunderTown) 


On 2016/5/27 1:12, David Daney wrote:
> The current patch to correct this problem is here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
> 
> Since v7 of the ACPI/NUMA patches are likely going to be added to linux-next 
> as soon as the current merge window ends, further simplifications of the 
> informational prints should probably be rebased on top of it.
> 
> David Daney
> 

>> On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:22 -0700, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> IIRC, it should be
>>> if (!numa_off)
>>> we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa 
>>> configuration.
>>> when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.
>>>

 +   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
>>


OK, I think I also missed some cases.

But my problem still have not been resolved by 
"https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679;, see below. I will update my patches base 
on it.


[0.00] NUMA: Adding memblock [0x0 - 0x6aff] on node 0
[0.00] NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map-v1
[0.00] NUMA: Warning: invalid memblk node 4 [mem 0x6b00-0x7fbf] 
//My numa configuration is incorrect, but not "No ... found"
[0.00] No NUMA configuration found  
//Above warning is very detail, this can be removed
[0.00] NUMA: Faking a node at [mem 
0x-0x0017]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread David Daney 

The current patch to correct this problem is here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679

Since v7 of the ACPI/NUMA patches are likely going to be added to 
linux-next as soon as the current merge window ends, further 
simplifications of the informational prints should probably be rebased 
on top of it.


David Daney

On 05/26/2016 09:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:

On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:22 -0700, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Zhen Lei  wrote:

numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.

[]

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c

[]

@@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
 int ret;
 struct memblock_region *mblk;

-   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
+   if (numa_off)

IIRC, it should be
if (!numa_off)
we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa configuration.
when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.



+   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");


trivia:

Using printk("%s\n", "string") just makes the object code larger
for no particular benefit.

pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");

would be smaller, faster and more intelligible for humans too.

Maybe something like this:
---
  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 41 -
  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 98dc104..2042452 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
   * along with this program.  If not, see .
   */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
  #include 
  #include 
  #include 
@@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
if (!opt)
return -EINVAL;
if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-   pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+   pr_info("NUMA turned off\n");
numa_off = 1;
}
return 0;
@@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);

/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-   pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+   pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
  }

  /*
@@ -142,14 +144,14 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)

ret = memblock_set_node(start, size, , nid);
if (ret < 0) {
-   pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node 
%d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+  start, (start + size - 1), nid);
return ret;
}

node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-   pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
return ret;
  }

@@ -163,19 +165,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 
start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
void *nd;
int tnid;

-   pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-   (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+   pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
nd = __va(nd_pa);

/* report and initialize */
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
if (tnid != nid)
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

node_data[nid] = nd;
memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -232,8 +233,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;

-   pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-   numa_distance_cnt);
+   pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);

return 0;
  }
@@ -254,20 +254,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
  void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread David Daney 

The current patch to correct this problem is here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679

Since v7 of the ACPI/NUMA patches are likely going to be added to 
linux-next as soon as the current merge window ends, further 
simplifications of the informational prints should probably be rebased 
on top of it.


David Daney

On 05/26/2016 09:35 AM, Joe Perches wrote:

On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:22 -0700, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Zhen Lei  wrote:

numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.

[]

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c

[]

@@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
 int ret;
 struct memblock_region *mblk;

-   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
+   if (numa_off)

IIRC, it should be
if (!numa_off)
we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa configuration.
when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.



+   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");


trivia:

Using printk("%s\n", "string") just makes the object code larger
for no particular benefit.

pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");

would be smaller, faster and more intelligible for humans too.

Maybe something like this:
---
  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 41 -
  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 98dc104..2042452 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
   * along with this program.  If not, see .
   */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
  #include 
  #include 
  #include 
@@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
if (!opt)
return -EINVAL;
if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-   pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+   pr_info("NUMA turned off\n");
numa_off = 1;
}
return 0;
@@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);

/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-   pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+   pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
  }

  /*
@@ -142,14 +144,14 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)

ret = memblock_set_node(start, size, , nid);
if (ret < 0) {
-   pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node 
%d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+  start, (start + size - 1), nid);
return ret;
}

node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-   pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
return ret;
  }

@@ -163,19 +165,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 
start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
void *nd;
int tnid;

-   pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-   (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+   pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
nd = __va(nd_pa);

/* report and initialize */
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
if (tnid != nid)
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

node_data[nid] = nd;
memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -232,8 +233,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;

-   pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-   numa_distance_cnt);
+   pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);

return 0;
  }
@@ -254,20 +254,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
  void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
  {
if

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread Joe Perches 
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:22 -0700, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Zhen Lei  wrote:
> > numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> > error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> > configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
> > testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.
[]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
[]
> > @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> > int ret;
> > struct memblock_region *mblk;
> > 
> > -   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
> > +   if (numa_off)
> IIRC, it should be
> if (!numa_off)
> we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa 
> configuration.
> when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.
> 
> > 
> > +   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");

trivia:

Using printk("%s\n", "string") just makes the object code larger
for no particular benefit.

pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");

would be smaller, faster and more intelligible for humans too.

Maybe something like this:
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 41 -
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 98dc104..2042452 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see .
  */
 
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include 
 #include 
 #include 
@@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
    if (!opt)
    return -EINVAL;
    if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-   pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+   pr_info("NUMA turned off\n");
    numa_off = 1;
    }
    return 0;
@@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
    set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);
 
    /* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-   pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+   pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -142,14 +144,14 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
 
    ret = memblock_set_node(start, size, , nid);
    if (ret < 0) {
-   pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node 
%d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+      start, (start + size - 1), nid);
    return ret;
    }
 
    node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-   pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
    return ret;
 }
 
@@ -163,19 +165,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 
start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
    void *nd;
    int tnid;
 
-   pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-   (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+   pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
 
    nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
    nd = __va(nd_pa);
 
    /* report and initialize */
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
    nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
    tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
    if (tnid != nid)
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
 
    node_data[nid] = nd;
    memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -232,8 +233,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
    numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
    LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
 
-   pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-   numa_distance_cnt);
+   pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);
 
    return 0;
 }
@@ -254,20 +254,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
    if (!numa_distance) {
-   pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: distance table not allocated 
yet\n");
+   pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
    return;
    }
 
    if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
 

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread Joe Perches 
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 09:22 -0700, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Zhen Lei  wrote:
> > numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> > error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> > configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
> > testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.
[]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
[]
> > @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> > int ret;
> > struct memblock_region *mblk;
> > 
> > -   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
> > +   if (numa_off)
> IIRC, it should be
> if (!numa_off)
> we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa 
> configuration.
> when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.
> 
> > 
> > +   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");

trivia:

Using printk("%s\n", "string") just makes the object code larger
for no particular benefit.

pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");

would be smaller, faster and more intelligible for humans too.

Maybe something like this:
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 41 -
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 98dc104..2042452 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see .
  */
 
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include 
 #include 
 #include 
@@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
    if (!opt)
    return -EINVAL;
    if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-   pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+   pr_info("NUMA turned off\n");
    numa_off = 1;
    }
    return 0;
@@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
    set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);
 
    /* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-   pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+   pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -142,14 +144,14 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
 
    ret = memblock_set_node(start, size, , nid);
    if (ret < 0) {
-   pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node 
%d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+      start, (start + size - 1), nid);
    return ret;
    }
 
    node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-   pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
-   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
+   pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+   start, (start + size - 1), nid);
    return ret;
 }
 
@@ -163,19 +165,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 
start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
    void *nd;
    int tnid;
 
-   pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-   (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+   pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
 
    nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
    nd = __va(nd_pa);
 
    /* report and initialize */
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
    nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
    tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
    if (tnid != nid)
-   pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+   pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
 
    node_data[nid] = nd;
    memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -232,8 +233,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
    numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
    LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
 
-   pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-   numa_distance_cnt);
+   pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);
 
    return 0;
 }
@@ -254,20 +254,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
    if (!numa_distance) {
-   pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: distance table not allocated 
yet\n");
+   pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
    return;
    }
 
    if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
    from < 0

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread Ganapatrao Kulkarni 
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Zhen Lei  wrote:
> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
> testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 98dc104..9937cc1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> int ret;
> struct memblock_region *mblk;
>
> -   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
> +   if (numa_off)

IIRC, it should be
if (!numa_off)
we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa configuration.
when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.

> +   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
> pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
>0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
>
> --
> 2.5.0

ganapat
>
>
>
> ___
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-26 Thread Ganapatrao Kulkarni 
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Zhen Lei  wrote:
> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
> testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 98dc104..9937cc1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> int ret;
> struct memblock_region *mblk;
>
> -   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
> +   if (numa_off)

IIRC, it should be
if (!numa_off)
we want to print this message when we failed to find proper numa configuration.
when numa_off is set, we will not look for any numa configuration.

> +   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
> pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
>0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
>
> --
> 2.5.0

ganapat
>
>
>
> ___
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-25 Thread Zhen Lei 
numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 98dc104..9937cc1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
int ret;
struct memblock_region *mblk;

-   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
+   if (numa_off)
+   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
   0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH 3/3] arm64/numa: fix type info

2016-05-25 Thread Zhen Lei 
numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
configuration error information can be immediately printed by the
testing branch. So "No NUMA..." only needs to be printed when numa_off.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 98dc104..9937cc1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
int ret;
struct memblock_region *mblk;

-   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
+   if (numa_off)
+   pr_info("%s\n", "No NUMA configuration found");
pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
   0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--
2.5.0