* Nathan Lynch [2019-09-12 13:15:03]:
> Srikar Dronamraju writes:
>
> >>
> >> I think just WARN_ON(cpu_online(fcpu)) would be satisfactory. In my
> >> experience, the downstream effects of violating this condition are
> >> varied and quite difficult to debug. Seems only appropriate to emit a
Srikar Dronamraju writes:
>>
>> I think just WARN_ON(cpu_online(fcpu)) would be satisfactory. In my
>> experience, the downstream effects of violating this condition are
>> varied and quite difficult to debug. Seems only appropriate to emit a
>> warning and stack trace before the OS inevitably
>
> I think just WARN_ON(cpu_online(fcpu)) would be satisfactory. In my
> experience, the downstream effects of violating this condition are
> varied and quite difficult to debug. Seems only appropriate to emit a
> warning and stack trace before the OS inevitably becomes unstable.
I still have
Hi Srikar,
Srikar Dronamraju writes:
>> > @@ -496,6 +501,16 @@ static int numa_setup_cpu(unsigned long lcpu)
>> >if (nid < 0 || !node_possible(nid))
>> >nid = first_online_node;
>> >
>> > + /*
>> > + * Update for the first thread of the core. All threads of a core
>> > + *
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for your reviews.
> > - if ((nid = numa_cpu_lookup_table[lcpu]) >= 0) {
> > + nid = numa_cpu_lookup_table[fcpu];
> > + if (nid >= 0) {
> > map_cpu_to_node(lcpu, nid);
> > return nid;
> > }
>
> Yes, we need to something like this to prevent a
Hi Srikar,
Srikar Dronamraju writes:
> @@ -467,15 +467,20 @@ static int of_drconf_to_nid_single(struct drmem_lmb
> *lmb)
> */
> static int numa_setup_cpu(unsigned long lcpu)
> {
> - int nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> struct device_node *cpu;
> + int fcpu =
