Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:51:42 +0800 | From | Tang Chen <> | Subject | Re: sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node! |
| |
>>> >>> [ 0.170435] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>> [ 0.170450] WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:324 >>> topology_sane.isra.2+0x71/0x84() >>> [ 0.170452] Hardware name: S2600CP >>> [ 0.170454] sched: CPU #1's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same >>> node! [node: 1 != 0]. Ignoring dependency. >>> [ 0.156000] smpboot: Booting Node 1, Processors #1 >>> [ 0.170455] Modules linked in: >>> [ 0.170460] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.8.0+ #1 >>> [ 0.170461] Call Trace: >>> [ 0.170466] [<ffffffff810597bf>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 >>> [ 0.170473] [<ffffffff810598b6>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50 >>> [ 0.170477] [<ffffffff816cc752>] topology_sane.isra.2+0x71/0x84 >>> [ 0.170482] [<ffffffff816cc9de>] set_cpu_sibling_map+0x23f/0x436 >>> [ 0.170487] [<ffffffff816ccd0c>] start_secondary+0x137/0x201 >>> [ 0.170502] ---[ end trace 09222f596307ca1d ]--- > > that commit is totally broken, and it should be reverted. > > 1. numa_init is called several times, NOT just for srat. so those > nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed) > memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)) > can not be just removed. > please consider sequence is: numaq, srat, amd, dummy. > You need to make fall back path working! > > 2. simply split acpi_numa_init to early_parse_srat. > a. that early_parse_srat is NOT called for ia64, so you break ia64. > b. for (i = 0; i< MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++) > set_apicid_to_node(i, NUMA_NO_NODE) > still left in numa_init. So it will just clear result from early_parse_srat. > it should be moved before that.... > > 3. that patch TITLE is total misleading, there is NO x86 in the title, > but it changes > to x86 code. > > 4, it does not CC to TJ and other numa guys...
Hi Yinghai, Don,
OK, I see this. I'll fix it soon. :)
Thanks. :)
| |