Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] sched/topology: Introduce sched_numa_hop_mask()
In-Reply-To: <YzCYXEytXy8UJQFv@yury-laptop>
References: <20220923132527.1001870-1-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <20220923155542.1212814-4-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <YzCYXEytXy8UJQFv@yury-laptop>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:45:15 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmhfsgc4vhg.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 25/09/22 11:05, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 04:55:40PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> +const struct cpumask *sched_numa_hop_mask(int node, int hops)
>> +{
>> +	struct cpumask ***masks = rcu_dereference(sched_domains_numa_masks);
>> +
>> +	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE && !hops)
>> +		return cpu_online_mask;
>> +
>> +	if (node >= nr_node_ids || hops >= sched_domains_numa_levels)
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> This looks like a sanity check. If so, it should go before the snippet
> above, so that client code would behave consistently.
>

nr_node_ids is unsigned, so -1 >= nr_node_ids is true.

>> +
>> +	if (!masks)
>> +		return NULL;
>
> In (node == NUMA_NO_NODE && !hops) case you return online cpus. Here
> you return NULL just to convert it to cpu_online_mask in the caller.
> This looks inconsistent. So, together with the above comment, this
> makes me feel that you'd do it like this:
>
>  const struct cpumask *sched_numa_hop_mask(int node, int hops)
>  {
>       struct cpumask ***masks;
>
>       if (node >= nr_node_ids || hops >= sched_domains_numa_levels)
>         {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
>                 pr_err(...);
>  #endif
>               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>         }
>
>       if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE && !hops)
>               return cpu_online_mask; /* or NULL */
>
>         masks = rcu_dereference(sched_domains_numa_masks);
>       if (!masks)
>               return cpu_online_mask; /* or NULL */
>
>       return masks[hops][node];
>  }

If we're being pedantic, sched_numa_hop_mask() shouldn't return
cpu_online_mask in those cases, but that was the least horrible
option I found to get something sensible for the NUMA_NO_NODE /
!CONFIG_NUMA case. I might be able to better handle this with your
suggestion of having a mask iterator.