[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190923154852.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:48:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, 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, mpe@...erman.id.au,
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, 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 v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 05:28:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 23-09-19 17:15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > index 4123100e..9859acb 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > @@ -861,6 +861,9 @@ void numa_remove_cpu(int cpu)
> > > */
> > > const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> > > {
> > > + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > > + return cpu_online_mask;
> >
> > This mandates the caller holds cpus_read_lock() or something, I'm pretty
> > sure that if I put:
> >
> > lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>
> Is this documented somewhere?
No idea... common sense :-)
> Also how does that differ from a normal
> case when a proper node is used? The cpumask will always be dynamic in
> the cpu hotplug presence, right?
As per normal yes, and I'm fairly sure there's a ton of bugs. Any
'online' state is subject to change except when you're holding
sufficient locks to stop it.
Disabling preemption also stabilizes it, because cpu unplug relies on
stop-machine.
> > here, it comes apart real quick. Without holding the cpu hotplug lock,
> > the online mask is gibberish.
>
> Can the returned cpu mask go away?
No, the cpu_online_mask itself has static storage, the contents OTOH can
change at will. Very little practical difference :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists