Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arch/sh/: fix NUMA build errors | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Date | Sun, 24 Nov 2019 08:24:58 -0800 |
| |
On 11/19/19 1:12 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/18/19 11:38 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Hi Randy, >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 1:55 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: >>> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >>> Fix SUPERH builds that select SYS_SUPPORTS_NUMA but do not select >>> SYS_SUPPORTS_SMP and SMP. >>> >>> kernel/sched/topology.c is only built for CONFIG_SMP and then the NUMA >>> code + data inside topology.c is only built when CONFIG_NUMA is >>> set/enabled, so these arch/sh/ configs need to select SMP and >>> SYS_SUPPORTS_SMP to build the NUMA support. >>> >>> Fixes this build error in 3 different SUPERH configs: >>> >>> mm/page_alloc.o: In function `get_page_from_freelist': >>> page_alloc.c:(.text+0x2ca8): undefined reference to `node_reclaim_distance' >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> >>> Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp> >>> Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> >>> Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org >>> --- >>> or maybe these should be fixed in the defconfig files? >>> >>> or alternatively, does it make any sense to support NUMA without SMP? >> >> I think it does. From arch/sh/mm/Kconfig config NUMA help: >> >> Some SH systems have many various memories scattered around >> the address space, each with varying latencies. This enables >> support for these blocks by binding them to nodes and allowing >> memory policies to be used for prioritizing and controlling >> allocation behaviour. > > Yes, I saw that and suspected it also. > > I was (and still am) hoping that a SuperH maintainer comments on > this and on how they are currently building kernels for these > failing configs. Maybe they have some patches that aren't in-tree yet? >
Yoshinori-san, Can you share with us how you build kernels for SUPERH configs that set CONFIG_NUMA but do not set CONFIG_SMP? Do you have any patches for this?
> >> Probably the NUMA-core is too server/x86-centric, by assuming NUMA is >> used only on systems with multiple CPUs, each with their own RAM.
Yes, I looked at all of that code for a couple of days and got nowhere with trying to separate NUMA from SMP.
thanks. -- ~Randy
| |