On 2017/6/8 22:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC linux-api]
>
> On Wed 07-06-17 17:23:20, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> When I executed numactl -H(print cpumask_of_node for each node), I got
>> different result on X86 and ARM64. For each numa node, the former
>> only displayed online CPUs, and the latter displayed all possible
>> CPUs. Actually, all other ARCHs is the same to ARM64.
>>
>> So, my question is: Which case(online or possible) should function
>> cpumask_of_node be? Or there is no matter about it?
>
> Unfortunatelly the documentation is quite unclear
> What: /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/cpumap
> Date: October 2002
> Contact: Linux Memory Management list
> Description:
> The node's cpumap.
>
> not really helpeful, is it? Semantically I _think_ printing online cpus
> makes more sense because it doesn't really make much sense to bind
> anything on offline nodes. Generic implementtion of cpumask_of_node
> indeed provides only online cpus. I haven't checked specific
> implementations of arch specific code but listing offline cpus sounds
> confusing to me.
>
OK, thank you very much. So, how about we directly add "cpumask_and with
cpu_online_mask", as below:
diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index b10479c..199723d 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -28,12 +28,14 @@ static struct bus_type node_subsys = {
static ssize_t node_read_cpumap(struct device *dev, bool list, char *buf)
{
struct node *node_dev = to_node(dev);
- const struct cpumask *mask = cpumask_of_node(node_dev->dev.id);
+ struct cpumask mask;
+
+ cpumask_and(&mask, cpumask_of_node(node_dev->dev.id), cpu_online_mask);
/* 2008/04/07: buf currently PAGE_SIZE, need 9 chars per 32 bits. */
BUILD_BUG_ON((NR_CPUS/32 * 9) > (PAGE_SIZE-1));
- return cpumap_print_to_pagebuf(list, buf, mask);
+ return cpumap_print_to_pagebuf(list, buf, &mask);
}
static inline ssize_t node_read_cpumask(struct device *dev,
--
Thanks!
BestRegards
