diff mbox

[2/2] arm64/numa: fix incorrect print of end_pfn

Message ID 1476935576-59941-2-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Hanjun Guo Oct. 20, 2016, 3:52 a.m. UTC 
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>


When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no
memory dimm on this memory controller), the print
for setup_node_data() is incorrect:

NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is
no memory on that node.

Fixes: 1a2db300348b ("arm64, numa: Add NUMA support for arm64 platforms.")
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
1.7.12.4


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Comments

Will Deacon Oct. 20, 2016, 10:51 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:52:56AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>

> 

> When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no

> memory dimm on this memory controller), the print

> for setup_node_data() is incorrect:

> 

> NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> 

> It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is

> no memory on that node.


Wouldn't it make more sense to print something useful, like "memory-less
node"?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Hanjun Guo Oct. 20, 2016, 12:21 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 2016/10/20 18:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:52:56AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>

>>

>> When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no

>> memory dimm on this memory controller), the print

>> for setup_node_data() is incorrect:

>>

>> NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

>>

>> It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is

>> no memory on that node.

> Wouldn't it make more sense to print something useful, like "memory-less

> node"?


in the log,

[    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x13fbffffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x13fbffe500-0x13fbffffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x1400000000-0x17fbffffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfec500-0x17fbfedfff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfeaa00-0x17fbfec4ff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(2) on node 1
[    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 3 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfe8f00-0x17fbfea9ff]
[    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(3) on node 1

if printing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000000]",
it will make the log consistent with others, and obvious it's a memory-less
node as memory range 0x00000000-0x00000000, what do you think?

Thanks
Hanjun


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Will Deacon Oct. 20, 2016, 12:52 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:21:37PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/10/20 18:51, Will Deacon wrote:

> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:52:56AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

> >> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>

> >>

> >> When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no

> >> memory dimm on this memory controller), the print

> >> for setup_node_data() is incorrect:

> >>

> >> NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> >>

> >> It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is

> >> no memory on that node.

> > Wouldn't it make more sense to print something useful, like "memory-less

> > node"?

> 

> in the log,

> 

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x13fbffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x13fbffe500-0x13fbffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x1400000000-0x17fbffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfec500-0x17fbfedfff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfeaa00-0x17fbfec4ff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(2) on node 1

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 3 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfe8f00-0x17fbfea9ff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(3) on node 1

> 

> if printing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000000]",

> it will make the log consistent with others, and obvious it's a memory-less

> node as memory range 0x00000000-0x00000000, what do you think?


How is that more obvious than printing the string "memory-less node"?
Is this data parsed by something?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Mark Rutland Oct. 20, 2016, 12:55 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:21:37PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/10/20 18:51, Will Deacon wrote:

> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:52:56AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

> >> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>

> >>

> >> When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no

> >> memory dimm on this memory controller), the print

> >> for setup_node_data() is incorrect:

> >>

> >> NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> >>

> >> It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is

> >> no memory on that node.

> > Wouldn't it make more sense to print something useful, like "memory-less

> > node"?

> 

> in the log,

> 

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x13fbffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x13fbffe500-0x13fbffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x1400000000-0x17fbffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfec500-0x17fbfedfff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfeaa00-0x17fbfec4ff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(2) on node 1

> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 3 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfe8f00-0x17fbfea9ff]

> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(3) on node 1

> 

> if printing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000000]",


Seeing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [<memoryless node>]" would be far
more obvious as a memoryless node, and I don't see that this would be
inconsistent.

Thanks,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 34415fc..148e1fc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -227,7 +227,8 @@  static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	int tnid;
 
 	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
+		end_pfn ? (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1 : 0);
 
 	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);