Re: [PATCH] x86-64, NUMA: fix fakenuma boot failure

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Wed Apr 13 2011 - 15:32:32 EST


On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 04:02:43PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Your patch have two mistake.
> 1) link_thread_siblings() is for HT
> set_cpu_sibling_map() has another sibling calculations.
> 2) numa_set_node() is not enough. scheduler is using node_to_cpumask_map[] too.

Thanks for seeing this through but your patch is badly whitespace
broken. Can you please check your mail setup and repost? Also, some
comments below.

> btw, Please see cpu_coregroup_mask(). its return value depend on
> sched_mc_power_savings and sched_smt_power_savings. then, we need to care
> both cpu_core_mask and cpu_llc_shared_mask. I think.


> +static void __cpuinit node_cpumap_same_phys(int cpu1, int cpu2)

What does the "phys" mean? Maybe something like
check_cpu_siblings_on_same_node() is a better name?

> + /*
> + * Our CPU scheduler assume all cpus in the same physical cpu package
> + * are assigned the same node. But, Buggy ACPI table or NUMA emulation
> + * might assigne them to different node. Fix it.

> + */
> + if (node1 != node2) {
> + pr_warning("CPU %d in node %d and CPU %d in node %d are in the same physical CPU. forcing same node %d\n",
> + cpu1, node1, cpu2, node2, node2);
> +
> + numa_set_node(cpu1, node2);
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu1, node_to_cpumask_map[node2]);
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu1, node_to_cpumask_map[node1]);

Maybe what you want is the following?

numa_set_node(cpu1, node2)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at