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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: warn if NUMA configurations conflicts with
 lower layer
To:     Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc:     "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AE1D3@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <20200102112955.GC4864@bogus>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AEB67@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <c43342d0-7e4d-3be0-0fe1-8d802b0d7065@arm.com>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340AFCA0@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <7b375d79-2d3c-422b-27a6-68972fbcbeaf@arm.com>
 <66943c82-2cfd-351b-7f36-5aefdb196a03@arm.com>
 <c0e82c31-8ed6-4739-6b01-2594c58df95a@arm.com>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340B3203@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <51a7d543-e35f-6492-fa51-02828832c154@arm.com>
 <20200109110514.GC10914@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <ac3ec325-bbae-aeaf-0072-b91445bf54bc@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:07:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200109110514.GC10914@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/01/2020 12:05, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 03:31:24PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> Your issue is related to the 'numa mask check for scheduler MC
>> selection' functionality.  It was introduced by commit 37c3ec2d810f and
>> re-introduced by commit e67ecf647020 later. I don't know why we need
>> this functionality?
> 
> That functionality is to ensure that we don't break the sched_domain
> hierarchy for numa-in-cluster systems. We have to be sure that the MC
> domain is always smaller or equal to the NUMA node span.

Thanks! And we already have Arm64 systems today using 'numa-in-cluster',
as I learned yesterday.