[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190924131939.GS23050@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:19:39 +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 14:59:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:43:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:25:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 24-09-19 14:09:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > We can push back and say we don't respect the specification because it
> > > > is batshit insane ;-)
> > >
> > > Here is my fingers crossed.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Now granted; there's a number of virtual devices that really don't have
> > > > a node affinity, but then, those are not hurt by forcing them onto a
> > > > random node, they really don't do anything. Like:
> > >
> > > Do you really consider a random node a better fix than simply living
> > > with a more robust NUMA_NO_NODE which tells the actual state? Page
> > > allocator would effectivelly use the local node in that case. Any code
> > > using the cpumask will know that any of the online cpus are usable.
> >
> > For the pmu devices? Yes, those 'devices' aren't actually used for
> > anything other than sysfs entries.
> >
> > Nothing else uses the struct device.
>
> The below would get rid of the PMU and workqueue warnings with no
> side-effects (the device isn't used for anything except sysfs).
Hardcoding to 0 is simply wrong, if the node0 is cpuless for example...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists