Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203640-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <eaa90c1a-ae96-4506-90dd-146ce85d311c@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:13:17 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: x86: WARNING: at mm/memblock.c:1339 memblock_set_node - Usage of
 MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
 open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
 lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
References: <CA+G9fYsGFerOtoxwpKLOYcRtyJkmgjdP=qg4Y5iP5q-4Lt17Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <315d6873-d618-4126-b67a-de62502d7ee2@paulmck-laptop>
 <7d55b65e-331a-4ce2-8f72-d3c5c9e6eae0@suse.com>
 <e220910c-da6e-40ab-895f-87fd43c1de3f@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <e220910c-da6e-40ab-895f-87fd43c1de3f@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 05.06.2024 22:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:46:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.06.2024 21:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:19:21PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>> The following kernel warnings are noticed on x86 devices while booting
>>>> the Linux next-20240603 tag and looks like it is expected to warn users to
>>>> use NUMA_NO_NODE instead.
>>>>
>>>> Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
>>>>
>>>> The following config is enabled
>>>> CONFIG_NUMA=y
>>>
>>> I am seeing this as well.  Is the following commit premature?
>>>
>>> e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES")
>>>
>>> Maybe old ACPI tables and device trees need to catch up?
>>>
>>> Left to myself, I would simply remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() from the above
>>> commit, but I would guess that there is a better way.
>>
>> Well, the warning is issued precisely to make clear that call
>> sites need to change. A patch to do so for the two instances
>> on x86 that I'm aware of is already pending maintainer approval.
> 
> Could you please point me at that patch so that I can stop repeatedly
> reproducing those two particular issues?

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/abadb736-a239-49e4-ab42-ace7acdd4278@suse.com/

Jan