Re: x86: WARNING: at mm/memblock.c:1339 memblock_set_node - Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead

[Mike Rapoport]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:04:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 07:19:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 08:13:17AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 05.06.2024 22:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:46:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >> On 05.06.2024 21:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:19:21PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > >>>> The following kernel warnings are noticed on x86 devices while booting
> > > >>>> the Linux next-20240603 tag and looks like it is expected to warn users to
> > > >>>> use NUMA_NO_NODE instead.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The following config is enabled
> > > >>>> CONFIG_NUMA=y
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am seeing this as well.  Is the following commit premature?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES")
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Maybe old ACPI tables and device trees need to catch up?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Left to myself, I would simply remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() from the above
> > > >>> commit, but I would guess that there is a better way.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, the warning is issued precisely to make clear that call
> > > >> sites need to change. A patch to do so for the two instances
> > > >> on x86 that I'm aware of is already pending maintainer approval.
> > > > 
> > > > Could you please point me at that patch so that I can stop repeatedly
> > > > reproducing those two particular issues?
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/abadb736-a239-49e4-ab42-ace7acdd4278@xxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > Thank you, Jan!
> > 
> > A quick initial test shows that this clears things up.  I have started
> > a longer test to check for additional issues.  But in the meantime
> > for the issues I was already seeing in the initial test:
> > 
> > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> And the longer test ran without errors as well, so again, thank you!
> 
> Any chance of getting this into -next sooner rather than later?

Should be there tomorrow.
 
> 							Thanx, Paul

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.