[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190924115401.GM23050@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:54:01 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 Tue 24-09-19 13:23:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > To be honest I really fail to see why to object to a simple semantic
> > that NUMA_NO_NODE imply all usable cpus. Could you explain that please?
>
> Because it feels wrong. The device needs to be _somewhere_. It simply
> cannot be node-less.
What if it doesn't have any numa preference for what ever reason? There
is no other way to express that than NUMA_NO_NODE.
Anyway, I am not going to argue more about this because it seems more of
a discussion about "HW shouldn't be doing that although the specification
allows that" which cannot really have any outcome except of "feels
correct/wrong".
If you really feel strongly about this then we should think of a proper
way to prevent this to happen because an out-of-bound access is
certainly not something we really want, right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists