On 2019/10/29 16:53, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? Yes. > > I would just resend it unless there is still a clear disagreement over > it. Ok, thanks. Will resend it to see if there is still a disagreement over it. > >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/1571467543-26125-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx/ >
