FAILED: patch "[PATCH] of, numa: Return NUMA_NO_NODE from disable of_node_to_nid()" failed to apply to 4.8-stable tree

The patch below does not apply to the 4.8-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From: David Daney <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:15:02 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] of, numa: Return NUMA_NO_NODE from disable of_node_to_nid()
if nid not possible.

On arm64 NUMA kernels we can pass "numa=off" on the command line to disable NUMA. A side effect of this is that kmalloc_node() calls to non-zero nodes will crash the system with an OOPS:

[    0.000000] ITS@0x0000901000020000: allocated 2097152 Devices @10002000000 (flat, esz 8, psz 64K, shr 1)
[    0.000000] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00001680
[    0.000000] pgd = fffffc0009470000
[    0.000000] [00001680] *pgd=0000010ffff90003, *pud=0000010ffff90003, *pmd=0000010ffff90003, *pte=0000000000000000
[    0.000000] Internal error: Oops: 96000006 [#1] SMP
.
.
.
[    0.000000] [<fffffc00081c8950>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xa4/0xe68
[    0.000000] [<fffffc000821fa70>] new_slab+0xd0/0x564
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008221e24>] ___slab_alloc+0x2e4/0x514
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008239498>] __slab_alloc+0x48/0x58
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008222c20>] __kmalloc_node+0xd0/0x2dc
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008115374>] __irq_domain_add+0x7c/0x164
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b461dc>] its_probe+0x784/0x81c
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b462bc>] its_init+0x48/0x1b0
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b4543c>] gic_init_bases+0x228/0x360
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b456bc>] gic_of_init+0x148/0x1cc
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b5aec8>] of_irq_init+0x184/0x298
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b43f9c>] irqchip_init+0x14/0x38
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b12d60>] init_IRQ+0xc/0x30
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b10a3c>] start_kernel+0x240/0x3b8
[    0.000000] [<fffffc0008b101c4>] __primary_switched+0x30/0x6c
[    0.000000] Code: 912ec2a0 b9403809 0a0902fb 37b007db (f9400300)

.
.
.

This is caused by code like this in kernel/irq/irqdomain.c

domain = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*domain) + (sizeof(unsigned int) * size),
GFP_KERNEL, of_node_to_nid(of_node));

When NUMA is disabled, the concept of a node is really undefined, so of_node_to_nid() should unconditionally return NUMA_NO_NODE.

Fix by returning NUMA_NO_NODE when the nid is not in the set of possible nodes.

index f63d4b0deff0..a53982a330ea 100644
@@ -176,7 +176,12 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);
 
-	if (!r)
+	/*
+	 * If numa=off passed on command line, or with a defective
+	 * device tree, the nid may not be in the set of possible
+	 * nodes.  Check for this case and return NUMA_NO_NODE.
+	 */
+	if (!r && nid < MAX_NUMNODES && node_possible(nid))
 		return nid;
 
 	return NUMA_NO_NODE;

...

Hi everybody,

sorry for the mess, it seems that this patch (b6cc9474e2dd) depends on

9787ed6e5cee7a62320f3014eb5e7b373502c292
[PATCH] of/numa: remove a duplicated warning

by Zhen Lei <[email protected]> from 1 Sep 2016 to be applied for v4.7.10 and v4.8.17. After applying both I get the diff shown below. With these changes I could boot both v4.7.10 and v4.8.17 with "numa=off" to userspace on a Gigabyte R270-T60 server.

I apologize for the double send, hopefully now my email client is properly configured to send plain text only.

Best Regards
Gilbert Netzer

index 0f2784b..10bcf8f 100644
@@ -187,13 +187,13 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
                        np->name);
        of_node_put(np);
 
-       if (!r) {
-               if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-                       pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-                               nid);
-               else
-                       return nid;
-       }
+       /*
+        * If numa=off passed on command line, or with a defective
+        * device tree, the nid may not be in the set of possible
+        * nodes.  Check for this case and return NUMA_NO_NODE.
+        */
+       if (!r && nid < MAX_NUMNODES && node_possible(nid))
+               return nid;
 
        return NUMA_NO_NODE;
 }

Thanks for the info, but 4.8 is now end-of-life (as is 4.7), so I can't go back and add these. Just use 4.9 and all will be fine :)

thanks,

greg k-h