[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0bf2342-4f1c-bf2f-b912-a4558288a3d0@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:49:48 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab: Fix undefined init_cache_node_node() for NUMA
and !SMP
On 3/22/23 09:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 09:16:55AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 3/21/23 09:40, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:30:59AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> -#if (defined(CONFIG_NUMA) && defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)) || defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_NUMA) || defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>>> I'm amused by the thought of CONFIG_NUMA without CONFIG_SMP.
>>> Is it possible to have one node with memory and a single CPU, then
>>> another node with memory and no CPU?
>> It's _possible_ for sure, just unlikely. The most likely place these
>> days is probably a teensy tiny VM that just happens to have some
>> performance-differentiated memory exposed to it for some reason. Maybe
>> it's got a slice of slow PMEM or fast High-Bandwidth memory for whatever
>> reason.
> Right, you can construct such a system, but do we support the CONFIG
> options of NUMA enabled and SMP disabled? It seems so niche that we
> shouldn't be spending time testing that combination.
On x86 we don't:
> config NUMA
> bool "NUMA Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support"
> depends on SMP
> depends on X86_64 || (X86_32 && HIGHMEM64G && X86_BIGSMP)
... which I think is fine. I totally agree that NUMA without SMP is too
niche to care about. Heck, !SMP is almost too niche to care about these
days.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists