On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:59 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/28/21 12:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:42 AM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is no device node for the empty NUMA node. However, the
corresponding NUMA node ID and distance map is still valid in
"numa-distance-map-v1" compatible device node.
This fetches the NUMA node ID and distance map for these empty
NUMA node from "numa-distance-map-v1" compatible device node.
This is much nicer.
Indeed, thanks for your suggestions :)
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx>
drivers/of/of_numa.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index fe6b13608e51..5949829a1b00 100644
@@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
+ node_set(nodea, numa_nodes_parsed);
With this, couldn't we remove of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes() as the only
thing it does is node_set()?
I don't think so for couple of reasons:
(1) With problematic device-tree, the distance map node might be missed
or incomplete. In this case, of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes() still helps.
It's not the kernel's job to validate the DT (if it was, it is doing a
terrible job). I would suggest writing some checks for dtc if we're
worried about correctness. (The schemas don't work too well for cross
(2) @numa_nodes_parsed is also updated when the memory nodes are iterated
in of_numa_parse_memory_nodes() and numa_add_memblk().
So @numa_nodes_parsed, which is synchronized to @node_possible_map afterwards,
is the gathering output of CPU nodes, memory nodes and distance map node.
Is it valid to have node id's that are not in the distance map?