Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>,
	dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com,
	jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp,
	mpe@ellerman.id.au, x86@kernel.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com,
	borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
	jhogan@kernel.org, nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com,
	len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
	anshuman.khandual@arm.com, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, cai@lca.pw,
	luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net,
	axboe@kernel.dk, robin.murphy@arm.com,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
	tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	davem@davemloft.net,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:22:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190902182252.GC35858@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190902125644.GQ2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:25:24PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2019/9/2 15:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:46:51PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >> On 2019/9/1 0:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > >>> 1) because even it is not set, the device really does belong to a node.
> > >>> It is impossible a device will have magic uniform access to memory when
> > >>> CPUs cannot.
> > >>
> > >> So it means dev_to_node() will return either NUMA_NO_NODE or a
> > >> valid node id?
> > > 
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE := -1, which is not a valid node number. It is also, like I
> > > said, not a valid device location on a NUMA system.
> > > 
> > > Just because ACPI/BIOS is shit, doesn't mean the device doesn't have a
> > > node association. It just means we don't know and might have to guess.
> > 
> > How do we guess the device's location when ACPI/BIOS does not set it?
> 
> See device_add(), it looks to the device's parent and on NO_NODE, puts
> it there.
> 
> Lacking any hints, just stick it to node0 and print a FW_BUG or
> something.
> 
> > It seems dev_to_node() does not do anything about that and leave the
> > job to the caller or whatever function that get called with its return
> > value, such as cpumask_of_node().
> 
> Well, dev_to_node() doesn't do anything; nor should it. It are the
> callers of set_dev_node() that should be taking care.
> 
> Also note how device_add() sets the device node to the parent device's
> node on NUMA_NO_NODE. Arguably we should change it to complain when it
> finds NUMA_NO_NODE and !parent.
> 
> ---
>  drivers/base/core.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index f0dd8e38fee3..2caf204966a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -2120,8 +2120,16 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
>  		dev->kobj.parent = kobj;
>  
>  	/* use parent numa_node */
> -	if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) = NUMA_NO_NODE))
> -		set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
> +	if (dev_to_node(dev) = NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> +		if (parent)
> +			set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +		else {
> +			pr_err("device: '%s': has no assigned NUMA node\n", dev_name(dev));
> +			set_dev_node(dev, 0);
> +		}
> +#endif

BTW., is firmware required to always provide a NUMA node on NUMA systems?

I.e. do we really want this warning on non-NUMA systems that don't assign 
NUMA nodes?

Also, even on NUMA systems, is firmware required to provide a NUMA node - 
i.e. is it in principle invalid to offer no NUMA binding?

Thanks,

	Ingo