[ 09/75] x86/platform: Remove incorrect error message in x86_default_fixup_cpu_id()

From: Greg KH
Date: Fri May 04 2012 - 17:19:52 EST


3.3-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx>

commit 68894632afb2729a1d8785c877840953894c7283 upstream.

It's only called from amd.c:srat_detect_node(). The introduced
condition for calling the fixup code is true for all AMD
multi-node processors, e.g. Magny-Cours and Interlagos. There we
have 2 NUMA nodes on one socket. Thus there are cores having
different numa-node-id but with equal phys_proc_id.

There is no point to print error messages in such a situation.

The confusing/misleading error message was introduced with
commit 64be4c1c2428e148de6081af235e2418e6a66dda ("x86: Add
x86_init platform override to fix up NUMA core numbering").

Remove the default fixup function (especially the error message)
and replace it by a NULL pointer check, move the
Numascale-specific condition for calling the fixup into the
fixup-function itself and slightly adapt the comment.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120402160648.GR27684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h | 1 -
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c | 7 +++++--
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 7 ++++---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 9 ---------
arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c | 1 -
5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_init.h
@@ -189,6 +189,5 @@ extern struct x86_msi_ops x86_msi;

extern void x86_init_noop(void);
extern void x86_init_uint_noop(unsigned int unused);
-extern void x86_default_fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node);

#endif
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c
@@ -201,8 +201,11 @@ static void __init map_csrs(void)

static void fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node)
{
- c->phys_proc_id = node;
- per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, smp_processor_id()) = node;
+
+ if (c->phys_proc_id != node) {
+ c->phys_proc_id = node;
+ per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, smp_processor_id()) = node;
+ }
}

static int __init numachip_system_init(void)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
@@ -352,10 +352,11 @@ static void __cpuinit srat_detect_node(s
node = per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, cpu);

/*
- * If core numbers are inconsistent, it's likely a multi-fabric platform,
- * so invoke platform-specific handler
+ * On multi-fabric platform (e.g. Numascale NumaChip) a
+ * platform-specific handler needs to be called to fixup some
+ * IDs of the CPU.
*/
- if (c->phys_proc_id != node)
+ if (x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id)
x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id(c, node);

if (!node_online(node)) {
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -1163,15 +1163,6 @@ static void dbg_restore_debug_regs(void)
#endif /* ! CONFIG_KGDB */

/*
- * Prints an error where the NUMA and configured core-number mismatch and the
- * platform didn't override this to fix it up
- */
-void __cpuinit x86_default_fixup_cpu_id(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, int node)
-{
- pr_err("NUMA core number %d differs from configured core number %d\n", node, c->phys_proc_id);
-}
-
-/*
* cpu_init() initializes state that is per-CPU. Some data is already
* initialized (naturally) in the bootstrap process, such as the GDT
* and IDT. We reload them nevertheless, this function acts as a
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c
@@ -92,7 +92,6 @@ struct x86_init_ops x86_init __initdata

struct x86_cpuinit_ops x86_cpuinit __cpuinitdata = {
.setup_percpu_clockev = setup_secondary_APIC_clock,
- .fixup_cpu_id = x86_default_fixup_cpu_id,
};

static void default_nmi_init(void) { };


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/