Hi, On 17/03/21 20:04, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hi Valentin! > >> As pointed out by Barry in [1], there are topologies out there that struggle to >> go through the NUMA distance deduplicating sort. Included patch is something >> I wrote back when I started untangling this distance > 2 mess. >> >> It's only been lightly tested on some array of QEMU-powered topologies I keep >> around for this sort of things. I *think* this works out fine with the NODE >> topology level, but I wouldn't be surprised if I (re)introduced an off-by-one >> error in there. > > This patch causes a regression on my ia64 RX2660 server: > > [ 0.040000] smp: Brought up 1 node, 4 CPUs > [ 0.040000] Total of 4 processors activated (12713.98 BogoMIPS). > [ 0.044000] ERROR: Invalid distance value range > [ 0.044000] > > The machine still seems to boot normally besides the huge amount of spam. Full message > log below. > > Any idea? > Harumph! The expected / valid distance value range (as per ACPI spec) is [10, 255] (actually double-checking the spec, 255 is supposed to mean "unreachable", but whatever) Now, something in your system is exposing 256 nodes, all of them distance 0 from one another - the spam you're seeing is a printout of node_distance(i,j) for all nodes i, j I see ACPI in your boot logs, so I'm guessing you have a bogus SLIT table (the ACPI table with node distances). You should be able to double check this with something like: $ acpidump > acpi.dump $ acpixtract -a acpi.dump $ iasl -d *.dat $ cat slit.dsl As for fixing it, I think you have the following options: a) Complain to your hardware vendor to have them fix the table and ship a firmware fix b) Fix the ACPI table yourself - I've been told it's doable for *some* of them, but I've never done that myself c) Compile your kernel with CONFIG_NUMA=n, as AFAICT you only actually have a single node d) Ignore the warning c) is clearly not ideal if you want to use a somewhat generic kernel image on a wide host of machines; d) is also a bit yucky...
|