Received: by 2002:ac0:a5b6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m51-v6csp912758imm; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJJutVrSc1FeO06CMreLOKvikgiBFVgVoDdUIuluDBAvdCkJWzEiRvWYZlLnG5qcX+dFX/+ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9048:: with SMTP id w8-v6mr3501933plz.34.1528296390668; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1528296390; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=abmhyq3w70rIuAc9BUfDILeDtReIAFC2wc09+QxhQq3+cWbcR6DwOW9M4l/0qb2QP4 0iaaIEV+TwEoJiNOA0LXrVBEfpCWP/7pYAf8mB8YSjshAJpAH4BIqmc0l/94kJ6b/1aH DRmlJQsKXIrdKyXydQ4EJclUfHsf2YA/hLVqaLP6F3iTiHxKKJNeEc0lCkHmsNAvendw hkXYuTOsOkKcdEfOUO5px7IX42Lv7RLwhnjHgg3bqZNddjK40aMf7O7GWWR4qJ7U/ABr PpDfYVo5r/xyO+RKSRo2M5PHMuIVRQJ/XCC4gLWnPecuxXBSqD3fUQRRd6yI1p0r/8VE rTNQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=Xt8EMdWJd4nlKo1EzYR0b7zvyEXyj/dH5c8heIGFKMw=; b=ZDvus1qh74vWdehTdsjkxydBzZ4xoWWxdo8jylRRpbPgX/RH5QnT646xnrn3kOjM5W 1WJa3xQYl6HqmXljxmkJpAL4WMTyeRBxJLcYvH6y9DCPHZGGKcWvwRCrHHvg9GhMG4fb aDUMJ9Oi70rlshUHRj83eE/+J95mAtU/NIg1qGopQcWsnLLd32FcYCTG+FU8u1RMrYBP lNL4xzNcLXAQsk2+SvD0mswW0VChTgpZTLZqvF0HH9dvuqBRwUzfqkLguIS7wuuUn55X NRmMy20gqp+IjkmDLO5qxS5Kv4n9+8CDwvYVKK6JLgsT72T1jnjnRZ35I7v38TwaJv3S edvA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w33-v6si1275610plb.591.2018.06.06.07.46.16; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752401AbeFFOov (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:44:51 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:41242 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752363AbeFFOos (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:44:48 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A1315AD; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7D783F5A0; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:44:44 +0100 From: Morten Rasmussen To: Jeremy Linton Cc: Sudeep.Holla@arm.com, Will.Deacon@arm.com, Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, Robin.Murphy@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: topology: Avoid checking numa mask for scheduler MC selection Message-ID: <20180606144444.GB8461@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20180605190837.493505-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180605190837.493505-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:08:37PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > The numa mask subset check has problems if !CONFIG_NUMA, over hotplug > operations or during early boot. Lets disable the NUMA siblings checks > for the time being, as NUMA in socket machines have LLC's that will > assure that the scheduler topology isn't "borken". Could we add an explanation why the numa node mask check is needed in the first place? IIUC, we have the check in case the LLC is shared across numa nodes as this would cause core_siblings > cpumask_of_node() which breaks the scheduler topology. While sharing LLC across numa nodes seems quite unusual, I think it is allowed by ACPI. Those systems might already be broken before, so might not change anything. It is just worth noting why the check should be added back later. Morten