On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:23 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > (2013/12/06 0:11), Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 19:25 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > >> (2013/12/05 6:09), Toshi Kani wrote: > >>> When ACPI SLIT table has an I/O locality (i.e. a locality unique > >>> to an I/O device), numa_set_distance() emits the warning message > >>> below. > >>> > >>> NUMA: Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=-1 to=-1 distance=10 > >>> > >>> acpi_numa_slit_init() calls numa_set_distance() with pxm_to_node(), > >>> which assumes that all localities have been parsed with SRAT previously. > >>> SRAT does not list I/O localities, where as SLIT lists all localities > >> > >>> including I/Os. Hence, pxm_to_node() returns NUMA_NO_NODE (-1) for > >>> an I/O locality. I/O localities are not supported and are ignored > >>> today, but emitting such warning message leads unnecessary confusion. > >> > >> In this case, the warning message should not be shown. But if SLIT table > >> is really broken, the message should be shown. Your patch seems to not care > >> for second case. > > > > In the second case, I assume you are worrying about the case of SLIT > > table with bad locality numbers. Since SLIT is a matrix of the number > > of localities, it is only possible by making the table bigger than > > necessary. Such excessive localities are safe to ignore (as they are > > ignored today) and regular users have nothing to concern about them. > > The warning message in this case may be helpful for platform vendors to > > test their firmware, but they have plenty of other methods to verify > > their SLIT table. > > I understood it. So, > > Reviewed-by : Yasuaki Ishimatsu Great. Thanks Yasuaki! -Toshi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>