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:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc:     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: <1577088979-8545-1-git-send-email-prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
 <20191231164051.GA4864@bogus>
 <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>
 <20200103114011.GB19390@bogus>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340B31E9@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <20200109104306.GA10914@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <678F3D1BB717D949B966B68EAEB446ED340BEDD6@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
 <1a8f7963-97e9-62cc-12d2-39f816dfaf67@arm.com>
 <1fbe4475-363d-e800-8295-a1591d5e52d9@arm.com>
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Message-ID: <3b389423-4bc7-0706-660f-dbddf8445abd@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:15:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1fbe4475-363d-e800-8295-a1591d5e52d9@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 13/01/2020 14:49, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> LGTM. This code detects the issue in cpu_coregroup_mask(), which is the
> the cpumask function of the sched domain MC level struct
> sched_domain_topology_level of ARM64's (and other archs)
> default_topology[].
> I wonder how x86 copes with such a config error?
> Maybe they do it inside their cpu_coregroup_mask()?
> 
> 
> We could move validate_topology_spans() into the existing
> 
> for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map)
>     for_each_sd_topology(tl)
> 
> loop in build_sched_domains() saving some code?
> 

[...]

Yeah that should work. Folks might want to gate it under SCHED_DEBUG, but
that's another discussion.