[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190917093655.GA1872@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:36:55 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, rth@...ddle.net,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@...il.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@...c.org, davem@...emloft.net, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
paul.burton@...s.com, jhogan@...nel.org, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
chenhc@...ote.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, cai@....pw,
robin.murphy@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
len.brown@...el.com, axboe@...nel.dk, dledford@...hat.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
tbogendoerfer@...e.de, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware
On Tue 17-09-19 14:20:11, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/9/17 13:28, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com> writes:
[...]
> >> But we cannot really copy the page allocator logic. Simply because the
> >> page allocator doesn't enforce the near node affinity. It just picks it
> >> up as a preferred node but then it is free to fallback to any other numa
> >> node. This is not the case here and node_to_cpumask_map will only restrict
> >> to the particular node's cpus which would have really non deterministic
> >> behavior depending on where the code is executed. So in fact we really
> >> want to return cpu_online_mask for NUMA_NO_NODE.
> >>
> >> Some arches were already NUMA_NO_NODE aware, but they return cpu_all_mask,
> >> which should be identical with cpu_online_mask when those arches do not
> >> support cpu hotplug, this patch also changes them to return cpu_online_mask
> >> in order to be consistent and use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of "-1".
> >
> > Except some of those arches *do* support CPU hotplug, powerpc and sparc
> > at least. So switching from cpu_all_mask to cpu_online_mask is a
> > meaningful change.
>
> Yes, thanks for pointing out.
>
> >
> > That doesn't mean it's wrong, but you need to explain why it's the right
> > change.
>
> How about adding the below to the commit log:
> Even if some of the arches do support CPU hotplug, it does not make sense
> to return the cpu that has been hotplugged.
>
> Any suggestion?
Again, for the third time, I believe. Make it a separate patch please.
There is absolutely no reason to conflate those two things.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists