[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhNfwCO3xTIavi5v@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:47:44 +0100
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Rafael Aquini <raquini@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/mm/numa: Do not initialize nodes twice
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 18-02-22 23:43:02, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > Why setting the node online saves us then? Well, simply because
> > __try_online_node() backs off when the node is online, meaning
> > we do not end up calling register_one_node() in the first place.
>
> This is really a mess and a house built on sand. Thanks for looking into
> it and hopefully this can get cleaned up to a saner state.
Yes, I am willing to have a deep look into that and see how we can
improve the situation.
> This sha1 is from linux-next very likely so it won't be persistent.
> Please drop it.
Yes, it is. I guess it is fine to not have a "Fixes" tag here, so I will
remove it then.
> I would stick a TODO here.
> /*
> * Exclude this node from
> * bringup_nonboot_cpus
> * cpu_up
> * __try_online_node
> * register_one_node
> * because node_subsys is not initialized yet
> * TODO remove dependency on node_online()
> */
Sure, will do.
Thanks!
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists