[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1adcbe68-6753-3497-48a0-cc84ac503372@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:14:20 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: <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 2019/9/24 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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...
Hi, Peter & Michal
>From the discussion above, It seems making the node_to_cpumask_map()
NUMA_NO_NODE aware is the most feasible way to move forwad.
Any suggestion?
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists