Message-ID: <20200701110145.GC17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:31:45 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0
 offline

* David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:

> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
> > 
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The
> >>> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
> >>> device-tree and resource-dump
> >>>
> >>> 3. When the dummy node is present, single node non-Numa systems end up showing
> >>> up as NUMA systems and numa_balancing gets enabled. This will mean we take
> >>> the hit from the unnecessary numa hinting faults.
> >>
> >> I have to say that I dislike the node online/offline state and directly
> >> exporting that to the userspace. Users should only care whether the node
> >> has memory/cpus. Numa nodes can be online without any memory. Just
> >> offline all the present memory blocks but do not physically hot remove
> >> them and you are in the same situation. If users are confused by an
> >> output of tools like numactl -H then those could be updated and hide
> >> nodes without any memory&cpus.
> >>
> >> The autonuma problem sounds interesting but again this patch doesn't
> >> really solve the underlying problem because I strongly suspect that the
> >> problem is still there when a numa node gets all its memory offline as
> >> mentioned above.
> >>
> >> While I completely agree that making node 0 special is wrong, I have
> >> still hard time to review this very simply looking patch because all the
> >> numa initialization is so spread around that this might just blow up
> >> at unexpected places. IIRC we have discussed testing in the previous
> >> version and David has provided a way to emulate these configurations
> >> on x86. Did you manage to use those instruction for additional testing
> >> on other than ppc architectures?
> >>
> > 
> > I have tried all the steps that David mentioned and reported back at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200511174731.GD1961@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/#u
> > 
> > As a summary, David's steps are still not creating a memoryless/cpuless on
> > x86 VM.
> 
> Now, that is wrong. You get a memoryless/cpuless node, which is *not
> online*. Once you hotplug some memory, it will switch online. Once you
> remove memory, it will switch back offline.
> 

Let me clarify, we are looking for a node 0 which is cpuless/memoryless at
boot.  The code in question tries to handle a cpuless/memoryless node 0 at
boot.

With the steps that you gave the node 0 was always populated, node 1 or
some other node would be memoryless/cpuless and offline. But that should
have no impact by patch.

I don't see how adding/hotplugging/removing memory to a node after boot is
going to affect the changes that I have made. Please do correct me if I have
misunderstood.


-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

Powered by blists - more mailing lists