Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753837AbbGOWn6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:43:58 -0400 Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:53345 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752590AbbGOWn5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:43:57 -0400 X-Helo: d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com X-MailFrom: nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:43:51 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Tejun Heo Cc: Michael Ellerman , David Rientjes , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , Peter Zijlstra , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] powerpc/numa: fix cpu_to_node() usage during boot Message-ID: <20150715224351.GH38815@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150702230202.GA2807@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150715203516.GI15934@mtj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150715203516.GI15934@mtj.duckdns.org> X-Operating-System: Linux 3.13.0-40-generic (x86_64) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15071522-0033-0000-0000-0000052B284D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 31 On 15.07.2015 [16:35:16 -0400], Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 04:02:02PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > we currently emit at boot: > > > > [ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: [0] 0 1 2 3 [0] 4 5 6 7 > > > > After this commit, we correctly emit: > > > > [ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: [0] 0 1 2 3 [1] 4 5 6 7 > > JFYI, the numbers in the brackets aren't NUMA node numbers but percpu > allocation group numbers and they're not split according to nodes but > percpu allocation units. In both cases, there are two units each > serving 0-3 and 4-7. In the above case, because it wasn't being fed > the correct NUMA information, both got assigned to the same group. In > the latter, they got assigned to different ones but even then if the > group numbers match NUMA node numbers, that's just a coincidence. Ok, thank you for clarifying! From a correctness perspective, even if the numbers don't match NUMA nodes, should we expect the grouping to be split along NUMA topology? -Nish -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/