On Mon 28-10-19 17:20:33, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > On 2019/10/12 15:40, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:17:26PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > >> add pci and acpi maintainer > >> cc linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > >> On 2019/10/11 19:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:27:54AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > >>>> But I failed to see why the above is related to making node_to_cpumask_map() > >>>> NUMA_NO_NODE aware? > >>> > >>> Your initial bug is for hns3, which is a PCI device, which really _MUST_ > >>> have a node assigned. > >>> > >>> It not having one, is a straight up bug. We must not silently accept > >>> NO_NODE there, ever. > >>> > >> > >> I suppose you mean reporting a lack of affinity when the node of a pcie > >> device is not set by "not silently accept NO_NODE". > > > > If the firmware of a pci device does not provide the node information, > > then yes, warn about that. > > > >> As Greg has asked about in [1]: > >> what is a user to do when the user sees the kernel reporting that? > >> > >> We may tell user to contact their vendor for info or updates about > >> that when they do not know about their system well enough, but their > >> vendor may get away with this by quoting ACPI spec as the spec > >> considering this optional. Should the user believe this is indeed a > >> fw bug or a misreport from the kernel? > > > > Say it is a firmware bug, if it is a firmware bug, that's simple. > > > >> If this kind of reporting is common pratice and will not cause any > >> misunderstanding, then maybe we can report that. > > > > Yes, please do so, that's the only way those boxes are ever going to get > > fixed. And go add the test to the "firmware testing" tool that is based > > on Linux that Intel has somewhere, to give vendors a chance to fix this > > before they ship hardware. > > > > This shouldn't be a big deal, we warn of other hardware bugs all the > > time. > > Hi, all. > > The warning for the above case has been added in [1]. > > So maybe it makes sense to make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware > now? > > If Yes, this patch still can be applied to the latest linus' tree cleanly, > Do I need to resend it? > By this patch you mean http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1568724534-146242-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx right? I would just resend it unless there is still a clear disagreement over it. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/1571467543-26125-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx/ -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
