From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145BE2CCB4 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:35:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722962106; cv=none; b=hprAu1qKIHpir3Bpm4Mk4urEFbc/4q//HfPYaZ+94p+p0b07KBHIKLNWt/62ZbhhYvRMuqMltNiw14WzkKzEcBdonaGe56+twZzyb1GnwBwF9pL/nc6Gx4IY4HYmdpCAjdvM++Zb3FxmldSHcUXWpU9CwuPHHjQrP2OwMzbgoVM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722962106; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uQqSa2ju/OwNtv4V5r1lb+pBWDYjfdDGks/rRhWKkQY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pj95GeTdh9HSkuc7LM7hAOfuokZtJ67oBGfrZWiiI0j8J30wdLFPFzLkUbkalXp6eJee7pu98qU7numD1PFFkTtgCLSdYI3T0Ol+Fy00l8EQdgRFdIwVhUM2fZqd6cbHI1I2aR6Ej9C3krsnMOfZzkB9BxMZX+8r4YXmbSJLzks= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rFbtzxU/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rFbtzxU/" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C09AAC32786; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:35:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1722962105; bh=uQqSa2ju/OwNtv4V5r1lb+pBWDYjfdDGks/rRhWKkQY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rFbtzxU/9vfJ1XsILpQQPsivG1Pyogx2CI6NstcraYijdi2mzSCTxW4WvVPUs08Ko 6z0T8GGW5fCwuNikTj97SLFnGlJu3JkkfFsXiXnyII7JsnfqT1RxUwAQgkWX9v/zhS 4lGBViEWOHfWrzNRBp/GU5zVFKovj0T5LsBLwbtM/S0raRISU/kgybv+XkL39qeII1 vUpfdm2a4Z1/px0JCHRgBvGxTHDKC3dP8BFcfDo8iWier3zg/ajS+ejh6Oz+MzSPUt yXkh0sFiqQ3wf+mN4LIb2snalsqq3hDlVCEbir0xKdtHa95lfwG+CoGXv8lXzKI+TU 4EntyrvOy7bkQ== Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 18:34:58 +0200 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Haibo Xu , ajones@ventanamicro.com, sunilvl@ventanamicro.com, xiaobo55x@gmail.com, Anshuman Khandual , Will Deacon , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Jonathan Cameron , Hanjun Guo , James Morse , "Russell King (Oracle)" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: ACPI: NUMA: initialize all values of acpi_early_node_map to NUMA_NO_NODE Message-ID: References: <0d362a8ae50558b95685da4c821b2ae9e8cf78be.1722828421.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com> <853d7f74aa243f6f5999e203246f0d1ae92d2b61.1722828421.git.haibo1.xu@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 04:21:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 11:30:24AM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote: > > Currently, only acpi_early_node_map[0] was initialized to NUMA_NO_NODE. > > To ensure all the values were properly initialized, switch to initialize > > all of them to NUMA_NO_NODE. > > > > Fixes: e18962491696 ("arm64: numa: rework ACPI NUMA initialization") > > Reported-by: Andrew Jones > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones > > Signed-off-by: Haibo Xu > > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual > > Reviewed-by: Sunil V L > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c > > index 0c036a9a3c33..2465f291c7e1 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c > > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ > > > > #include > > > > -static int acpi_early_node_map[NR_CPUS] __initdata = { NUMA_NO_NODE }; > > +static int acpi_early_node_map[NR_CPUS] __initdata = { [0 ... NR_CPUS - 1] = NUMA_NO_NODE }; Bah, silly me, sorry. > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas > > The patch makes sense but is there any issue currently without it? I suspect there might be - a cpu associated with NUMA node 0 when it is actually unspecified in ACPI tables (well, probably not even a real world bug - I don't know, that's why it was not caught earlier I believe) but still. > Trying to assess whether it needs a stable backport. Whether that's a real bug or not depends on deployed ACPI firmware tables; if all cores have a proximity domain assigned in the respective SRAT entries this patch is irrelevant but technically it is a bug to fix, yes. Backporting would make sense, it should be innocuous. Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi