lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sft6rpyy.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:07:17 +0800
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] NUMA balancing: fix NUMA topology type for
 memory tiering system

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 03:30:50PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>> > * Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> [2022-01-28 10:38:41]:
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> One possible fix is to ignore CPU-less nodes when detecting NUMA
>> >> topology type in init_numa_topology_type().  That works well for the
>> >> example system.  Is it good in general for any system with CPU-less
>> >> nodes?
>> >> 
>> >
>> > A CPUless node at the time online doesn't necessarily mean a CPUless node
>> > for the entire boot. For example: On PowerVM Lpars, aka powerpc systems,
>> > some of the nodes may start as CPUless nodes and then CPUS may get
>> > populated/hotplugged on them.
>> 
>> Got it!
>> 
>> > Hence I am not sure if adding a check for CPUless nodes at node online may
>> > work for such systems.
>> 
>> How about something as below?
>
> I'm thinking that might not be enough in that scenario; if we're going
> to consistently skip CPU-less nodes (as I really think we should) then
> __sched_domains_numa_masks_set() is not sufficient for the hotplug case
> since sched_domains_numa_levels and sched_max_numa_distance can also
> change.
>
> This means we need to re-do more of sched_init_numa() and possibly
> re-alloc some of those arrays etc..
>
> Same for offline ofc.

Got it!  It doesn't make sense to create schedule domains for CPU-less
nodes.  I can work on this after Chinese New Year holiday week (the
whole next week).  But if anyone want to work on this, feel free to do
that.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ