From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751572AbdHVQqA (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:46:00 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:37220 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751061AbdHVQp6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:45:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20170822.094557.1690177202348153731.davem@davemloft.net> To: mroos@linux.ee Cc: hch@lst.de, 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 In-Reply-To: References: <20170822063505.GA6721@lst.de> <20170822.093139.473720171751670244.davem@davemloft.net> 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 09:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Meelis Roos Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:33:55 +0300 (EEST) >> > 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? > > T5120 with 1 slot and 32 threads total. I have not configured any NUM on > it is there any reason for that? Ok 32 cpus and 1 NUMA node, my bad :-)