From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751288AbdHVQbm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:31:42 -0400
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:36802 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751101AbdHVQbk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:31:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20170822.093139.473720171751670244.davem@davemloft.net>
To: hch@lst.de
Cc: mroos@linux.ee, helgaas@kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, qla2xxx-upstream@qlogic.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.13.0-rc4 sparc64: can't allocate MSI-X affinity masks for 2
 vectors
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170822063505.GA6721@lst.de>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1708212209280.31611@math.ut.ee>
        <20170821.133549.1817020810110297960.davem@davemloft.net>
        <20170822063505.GA6721@lst.de>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:35:05 +0200

> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:35:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> I ask because the commit log message indicates that this failure is
>> not expected to ever happen on SMP.
> 
> I fear my commit message (but not the code) might be wrong.
> irq_create_affinity_masks can return NULL any time we don't have any
> affinity masks.  I've already had a discussion about this elsewhere
> with Bjorn, and I suspect we need to kill the warning or move it
> to irq_create_affinity_masks only for genuine failure cases.

This is a rather large machine with 64 or more cpus and several NUMA
nodes.  Why wouldn't there be any affinity masks available?

That's why I want to root cause this.