From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDA0C433E1 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030C120738 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="cNBG7oi+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726535AbgHRHts (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:48 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:41558 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726336AbgHRHtq (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:46 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07I7WZql160485; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=87gJXPDfhi2rateCJHzi2rAoFQOxxft7r4R9eDeoiyo=; b=cNBG7oi+D9lOKanCx5Q8BHZNOqIqs5w3L0SBFhEKLxa0tlQpftXfa2UgS7hL4LvcVe2u PUlr27sSY4ktAnj1hvHevvFVbQ4QVKHYrw/x6P6RKJUaTSRklbYEOTgNU1h0w3O3QagH pMgDrdiX4uRfGyJJMhbSCxCLbK4amxp6jnDJHx0b5cYwnjTd7RtjVCOoLZDzPXPqCem0 MGDtm1xUxOGJnyu6yHidw/haFJWC7l34lN1tgsKkFS6SnSaHsE/Ah0BH9ZAsmTzgxNKL cDszJ/y8lBQNkywVr+HV4dl32xy7pXdCeujeGb6DhHny9yFu46AVgg3KGnf90/OaD4JS aw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3304nu0tp4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0400 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 07I7XRk6163508; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3304nu0tn5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:27 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07I7ijEt011058; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3304cc0c4c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:25 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 07I7nNcx12976508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:23 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36E211C050; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0606B11C04C; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:19:20 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Michal Hocko Cc: David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Michal Such?nek , Gautham R Shenoy , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Satheesh Rajendran , Mel Gorman , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christopher Lameter , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Message-ID: <20200818074920.GA3698@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com> <20200701122110.GT2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200703091001.GJ21462@kitsune.suse.cz> <20200703092414.GR18446@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200703105944.GS18446@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200703125823.GA26243@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200806213211.6a6a56037fe771836e5abbe9@linux-foundation.org> <20200812060101.GB10992@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <13a85e52-5caa-24a8-7169-3992b1ad262a@redhat.com> <20200818073712.GK28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200818073712.GK28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-18_04:2020-08-18,2020-08-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008180051 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Michal Hocko [2020-08-18 09:37:12]: > On Tue 18-08-20 09:32:52, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, Michal, David > > > > > > * Andrew Morton [2020-08-06 21:32:11]: > > > > > >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > >> > > >>>> The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa > > >>>> nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common > > >>>> case. I am not sure what would happen if a completely new node was added > > >>>> and its corresponding node was already used by the renumbered one > > >>>> though. It would likely conflate the two I am afraid. But I am not sure > > >>>> this is really possible with x86 and a lack of a bug report would > > >>>> suggest that nobody is doing that at least. > > >>>> > > >> So... do we merge this patch or not? Seems that the overall view is > > >> "risky but nobody is likely to do anything better any time soon"? > > > > > > Can we decide on this one way or the other? > > > > Hmm, not sure who's the person to decide. I tend to prefer doing the > > node renaming, handling this in ppc code; > > Agreed. That would be a safer option. Okay, will send arch specific v6 version. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA29C433E1 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9706D20825 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="cNBG7oi+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9706D20825 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BW35V2j2GzDqVH for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:51:42 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=cNBG7oi+; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BW3366t34zDqGq for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:49:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07I7WZql160485; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=87gJXPDfhi2rateCJHzi2rAoFQOxxft7r4R9eDeoiyo=; b=cNBG7oi+D9lOKanCx5Q8BHZNOqIqs5w3L0SBFhEKLxa0tlQpftXfa2UgS7hL4LvcVe2u PUlr27sSY4ktAnj1hvHevvFVbQ4QVKHYrw/x6P6RKJUaTSRklbYEOTgNU1h0w3O3QagH pMgDrdiX4uRfGyJJMhbSCxCLbK4amxp6jnDJHx0b5cYwnjTd7RtjVCOoLZDzPXPqCem0 MGDtm1xUxOGJnyu6yHidw/haFJWC7l34lN1tgsKkFS6SnSaHsE/Ah0BH9ZAsmTzgxNKL cDszJ/y8lBQNkywVr+HV4dl32xy7pXdCeujeGb6DhHny9yFu46AVgg3KGnf90/OaD4JS aw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3304nu0tp4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0400 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 07I7XRk6163508; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:28 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3304nu0tn5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 03:49:27 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07I7ijEt011058; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3304cc0c4c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:25 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 07I7nNcx12976508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:23 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36E211C050; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0606B11C04C; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:49:20 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:19:20 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Message-ID: <20200818074920.GA3698@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com> <20200701122110.GT2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200703091001.GJ21462@kitsune.suse.cz> <20200703092414.GR18446@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200703105944.GS18446@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200703125823.GA26243@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200806213211.6a6a56037fe771836e5abbe9@linux-foundation.org> <20200812060101.GB10992@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <13a85e52-5caa-24a8-7169-3992b1ad262a@redhat.com> <20200818073712.GK28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200818073712.GK28270@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-18_04:2020-08-18, 2020-08-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008180051 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Gautham R Shenoy , Andi Kleen , David Hildenbrand , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Satheesh Rajendran , Mel Gorman , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , Michal Such?nek , Linus Torvalds , Christopher Lameter , Vlastimil Babka Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Michal Hocko [2020-08-18 09:37:12]: > On Tue 18-08-20 09:32:52, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, Michal, David > > > > > > * Andrew Morton [2020-08-06 21:32:11]: > > > > > >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > >> > > >>>> The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa > > >>>> nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common > > >>>> case. I am not sure what would happen if a completely new node was added > > >>>> and its corresponding node was already used by the renumbered one > > >>>> though. It would likely conflate the two I am afraid. But I am not sure > > >>>> this is really possible with x86 and a lack of a bug report would > > >>>> suggest that nobody is doing that at least. > > >>>> > > >> So... do we merge this patch or not? Seems that the overall view is > > >> "risky but nobody is likely to do anything better any time soon"? > > > > > > Can we decide on this one way or the other? > > > > Hmm, not sure who's the person to decide. I tend to prefer doing the > > node renaming, handling this in ppc code; > > Agreed. That would be a safer option. Okay, will send arch specific v6 version. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju