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;
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 14:38:08 +0530
From:   Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Pratik R. Sampat" <psampat@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     mpe@ellerman.id.au, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pratik.r.sampat@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq:powernv: Fix init_chip_info initialization in
 numa=off
Message-ID: <20210708090808.GA21260@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20210615050949.10071-1-psampat@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210615050949.10071-1-psampat@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

Hello Pratik,

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:39:49AM +0530, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
> In the numa=off kernel command-line configuration init_chip_info() loops
> around the number of chips and attempts to copy the cpumask of that node
> which is NULL for all iterations after the first chip.

Thanks for taking a look into this. Indeed there is an issue here
because the code here assumes that node_mask as a proxy for the
chip_mask. This assumption breaks when run with numa=off, since there will only be a
single node, but multiple chips.


> 
> Hence adding a check to bail out after the first initialization if there
> is only one node.
> 
> Fixes: 053819e0bf84 ("cpufreq: powernv: Handle throttling due to Pmax capping at chip level")
> Signed-off-by: Pratik R. Sampat <psampat@linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Shirisha Ganta <shirishaganta1@ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> index e439b43c19eb..663f9c4b5e3a 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> @@ -1078,6 +1078,8 @@ static int init_chip_info(void)
>  		INIT_WORK(&chips[i].throttle, powernv_cpufreq_work_fn);
>  		for_each_cpu(cpu, &chips[i].mask)
>  			per_cpu(chip_info, cpu) =  &chips[i];
> +		if (num_possible_nodes() == 1)
> +			break;

With this we will only initialize the chip[0].throttle work function,
while for the rest of the chips chip[i].throttle will be
uninitialized. While we may be running in the numa=off mode, the fact
remains that those other chips do exist and they may experiencing
throttling, during which they will try to schedule work for chip[i] in
order to take corrective action, which will fail.

Hence a more correct approach may be to maintain a chip[i] mask
independent of the node mask.


>  	}
>  
>  free_and_return:
> -- 
> 2.30.2
>