On 2016/8/31 1:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:54:56PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2016/8/26 20:47, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:44PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
>>>> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
>>>> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
>>>> testing branch.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>>>> index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>>>> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
>>>> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
>>>> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> Hmm, but dummy_numa_init calls node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) for a
>>> completely artificial setup, created by adding all memblocks to node 0,
>>> so this new message will be suppressed even though things really did go
>>> wrong.
>> It will be printed by the former: numa_init(of_numa_init)
>
> Does that print an error for every possible failure case? What about the
> acpi path?
I think acpi path should print error by itself. The reason maybe:
1. In numa_init and its sub function, all error paths printed error immediately, except arm64_acpi_numa_init.
2. Suppose numa_init returns error, we do not print the returned error code, so the user don't known what problem cause acpi numa failed.
>
>>> In that case, don't we want to print *something* (like we do today in
>>> dummy_numa_init) but maybe not "No NUMA configuration found"? What
>>> exactly do you find inaccurate about the current message?
>> For example:
>> [ 0.000000] NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map
>> [ 0.000000] No NUMA configuration found
>>
>> So if of_numa_init or arm64_acpi_numa_init returned error, because of
>> some numa configuration error had been found, it's no good to print "No
>> NUMA ...".
>
> Sure, I'm all for changing the message. I just think removing it is
> probably unhelpful. Something like:
>
> "NUMA: Failed to initialise from firmware"
I think adding this into arm64_acpi_numa_init will be better, maybe we should print 'ret' further:
int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
{
int ret;
ret = acpi_numa_init();
if (ret) {
+ pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
return ret;
}
>
> might do the trick?
>
> Will
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
