Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9848:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x8csp657150pxf; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxmzepdGcrKT18YdI++bWPiM/GHtQpsyu2Okw9rrdgnufmieCOyrnOY1fvOGugDf8Jy1iuM X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3388:: with SMTP id v8mr37679815eja.278.1616009958828; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:39:18 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1616009958; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0GBull6em2sVoaLAI5M9Up+oxqVfZB2shK7s7Y0F4adz4xxjtcmPP3OOTIz8K9EJVC YLsuSz4d6rbRDqcADsCCVMUJJbJQ+i4q40XWhDn8U5sIE9/sQNxNb9+k6/50PQwgvxyz dMAaS0+S+KxFa8wgXoJSNbSI3bsrM5Ttp06tjtVFvaFqpVWYOkLVD61vNehEvmQ2qntW Y+/UaHZ+E/GMLRelT2STcBSf7grTWkvtPZZIyJ3Um8pmqxVYvY9q3CVVxjUs5uIghDlR D7z+J4aiNYeaiLGGMhYToKZByaAxaGxKaFE7YlgCcR5sTuCsV3jLartzqaHgLpJHWabP CCaw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from; bh=tEnYHswS11RVT2mnevpfp6fq/hpyh8ESAQpGGX2JmQE=; b=mRD6HIKvC8RUzqb5bXsMzdMWKr8Hcpa3RVyOGIuJH5dox+KOfKDPq1oQYnCGEOqM9F owV5CvXzY3QZ8UARzuUFNuR8SI543Po8gcHkHo2aaSjkLymdwzAXehE8vEyww2oE9LYl spQ5rQdSmBMV7NYY6hRCjhhpFhS/ivdVjWbi70aVkw9wlyQASyZH7omgV9nCHgGc4vw4 hnhGZZA5SfKAFL/az/0gSj2DjlGauZWlDf25l/l4Ki7tVJD1ShjZ0/NbJIi9uT708LCr jbgykAU31R0jArnpHsZt9rypd4C1Bh5KU3Y0lJCJlq8+K8rEYc9NSBq9X8yuy5W070ax pNFg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h20si16462392edb.417.2021.03.17.12.38.54; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233238AbhCQThA (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:37:00 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:44762 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233236AbhCQTgf (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:36:35 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432F5ED1; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e113632-lin (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B11C3F70D; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:36:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Valentin Schneider To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz Cc: "Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-ia64\@vger.kernel.org" , Sergei Trofimovich , debian-ia64 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] sched/topology: NUMA distance deduplication In-Reply-To: <255d6b5d-194e-eb0e-ecdd-97477a534441@physik.fu-berlin.de> References: <255d6b5d-194e-eb0e-ecdd-97477a534441@physik.fu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 19:36:27 +0000 Message-ID: <8735wtr2ro.mognet@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 17/03/21 20:04, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hi Valentin! > >> As pointed out by Barry in [1], there are topologies out there that struggle to >> go through the NUMA distance deduplicating sort. Included patch is something >> I wrote back when I started untangling this distance > 2 mess. >> >> It's only been lightly tested on some array of QEMU-powered topologies I keep >> around for this sort of things. I *think* this works out fine with the NODE >> topology level, but I wouldn't be surprised if I (re)introduced an off-by-one >> error in there. > > This patch causes a regression on my ia64 RX2660 server: > > [ 0.040000] smp: Brought up 1 node, 4 CPUs > [ 0.040000] Total of 4 processors activated (12713.98 BogoMIPS). > [ 0.044000] ERROR: Invalid distance value range > [ 0.044000] > > The machine still seems to boot normally besides the huge amount of spam. Full message > log below. > > Any idea? > Harumph! The expected / valid distance value range (as per ACPI spec) is [10, 255] (actually double-checking the spec, 255 is supposed to mean "unreachable", but whatever) Now, something in your system is exposing 256 nodes, all of them distance 0 from one another - the spam you're seeing is a printout of node_distance(i,j) for all nodes i, j I see ACPI in your boot logs, so I'm guessing you have a bogus SLIT table (the ACPI table with node distances). You should be able to double check this with something like: $ acpidump > acpi.dump $ acpixtract -a acpi.dump $ iasl -d *.dat $ cat slit.dsl As for fixing it, I think you have the following options: a) Complain to your hardware vendor to have them fix the table and ship a firmware fix b) Fix the ACPI table yourself - I've been told it's doable for *some* of them, but I've never done that myself c) Compile your kernel with CONFIG_NUMA=n, as AFAICT you only actually have a single node d) Ignore the warning c) is clearly not ideal if you want to use a somewhat generic kernel image on a wide host of machines; d) is also a bit yucky...