Commit da16ed52 authored by Tejun Heo's avatar Tejun Heo Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

cpumask: fix spurious cpumask_of_node() on non-NUMA multi-node configs

commit b339752d upstream.

When !NUMA, cpumask_of_node(@node) equals cpu_online_mask regardless of
@node.  The assumption seems that if !NUMA, there shouldn't be more than
one node and thus reporting cpu_online_mask regardless of @node is
correct.  However, that assumption was broken years ago to support
DISCONTIGMEM and whether a system has multiple nodes or not is
separately controlled by NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES.

This means that, on a system with !NUMA && NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES,
cpumask_of_node() will report cpu_online_mask for all possible nodes,
indicating that the CPUs are associated with multiple nodes which is an
impossible configuration.

This bug has been around forever but doesn't look like it has caused any
noticeable symptoms.  However, it triggers a WARN recently added to
workqueue to verify NUMA affinity configuration.

Fix it by reporting empty cpumask on non-zero nodes if !NUMA.
Signed-off-by: default avatarTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reported-and-tested-by: default avatarGeert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent 71584926
......@@ -48,7 +48,11 @@
#define parent_node(node) ((void)(node),0)
#endif
#ifndef cpumask_of_node
#define cpumask_of_node(node) ((void)node, cpu_online_mask)
#ifdef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
#define cpumask_of_node(node) ((node) == 0 ? cpu_online_mask : cpu_none_mask)
#else
#define cpumask_of_node(node) ((void)node, cpu_online_mask)
#endif
#endif
#ifndef pcibus_to_node
#define pcibus_to_node(bus) ((void)(bus), -1)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment