* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:25:24PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2019/9/2 15:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:46:51PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >> On 2019/9/1 0:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > >>> 1) because even it is not set, the device really does belong to a node.
> > >>> It is impossible a device will have magic uniform access to memory when
> > >>> CPUs cannot.
> > >>
> > >> So it means dev_to_node() will return either NUMA_NO_NODE or a
> > >> valid node id?
> > >
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE := -1, which is not a valid node number. It is also, like I
> > > said, not a valid device location on a NUMA system.
> > >
> > > Just because ACPI/BIOS is shit, doesn't mean the device doesn't have a
> > > node association. It just means we don't know and might have to guess.
> >
> > How do we guess the device's location when ACPI/BIOS does not set it?
>
> See device_add(), it looks to the device's parent and on NO_NODE, puts
> it there.
>
> Lacking any hints, just stick it to node0 and print a FW_BUG or
> something.
>
> > It seems dev_to_node() does not do anything about that and leave the
> > job to the caller or whatever function that get called with its return
> > value, such as cpumask_of_node().
>
> Well, dev_to_node() doesn't do anything; nor should it. It are the
> callers of set_dev_node() that should be taking care.
>
> Also note how device_add() sets the device node to the parent device's
> node on NUMA_NO_NODE. Arguably we should change it to complain when it
> finds NUMA_NO_NODE and !parent.
>
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index f0dd8e38fee3..2caf204966a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -2120,8 +2120,16 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
> dev->kobj.parent = kobj;
>
> /* use parent numa_node */
> - if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE))
> - set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
> + if (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> + if (parent)
> + set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> + else {
> + pr_err("device: '%s': has no assigned NUMA node\n", dev_name(dev));
> + set_dev_node(dev, 0);
> + }
> +#endif
BTW., is firmware required to always provide a NUMA node on NUMA systems?
I.e. do we really want this warning on non-NUMA systems that don't assign
NUMA nodes?
Also, even on NUMA systems, is firmware required to provide a NUMA node -
i.e. is it in principle invalid to offer no NUMA binding?
Thanks,
Ingo
