On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:23:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So I suspect what Yinghai tried to say if CPU0 and CPU1 are not on the
> same node we do the printout incorrectly.
I hope your translation is correct :) I'd still like to get a
confirmation from him though.
> Arguably this was a pre-existing condition, but would be nice to fix
> it now that this code has emerged out of steady bitrot! :-)
>
> How difficult would it be in your opinion?
Well, I did try a weird, non-existant configuration:
kvm ... -smp 6 -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0\;2\;3 -numa node,nodeid=1,cpus=1\;4\;5
and what I get is:
[ 0.068574] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[ 0.069006] .... node #1, CPUs: #1
[ 0.147005] .... node #0, CPUs: #2 #3 #4 #5
[ 0.445273] x86: Booted up 2 nodes, 6 CPUs
Before my cleanup and after removing the "fixing up alternatives"
message which hid things, the output looked like:
[ 0.069621] smpboot: Booting Node 1, Processors # 1 OK
[ 0.146006] smpboot: Booting Node 0, Processors # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 OK
[ 0.448320] Brought up 6 CPUs
The problem is not the indentation but that the current code slaps all
cpus on the last node, in this case node 0, because announce_cpu gets
the cores one by one.
A possible fix would be to collect the topology and dump it *only*
*after* the last core has been announced.
But before we do anything, I'd like to get a concrete system which has
that issue and we can talk about it then.
> Btw., while staring at that code once more I noticed the following
> small nit, there's a pre-existing weird way of writing the -1 literal:
>
> if (current_node > (-1))
It came from 2eaad1fddd7450a48ad464229775f97fbfe8af36.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
