From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:21:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200701122110.GT2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com>
On Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.07.20 13:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 01.07.20 13:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> * David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> [2020-07-01 12:15:54]:
> >>
> >>> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >>>> * Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The
> >>>>>> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
> >>>>>> device-tree and resource-dump
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. When the dummy node is present, single node non-Numa systems end up showing
> >>>>>> up as NUMA systems and numa_balancing gets enabled. This will mean we take
> >>>>>> the hit from the unnecessary numa hinting faults.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have to say that I dislike the node online/offline state and directly
> >>>>> exporting that to the userspace. Users should only care whether the node
> >>>>> has memory/cpus. Numa nodes can be online without any memory. Just
> >>>>> offline all the present memory blocks but do not physically hot remove
> >>>>> them and you are in the same situation. If users are confused by an
> >>>>> output of tools like numactl -H then those could be updated and hide
> >>>>> nodes without any memory&cpus.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The autonuma problem sounds interesting but again this patch doesn't
> >>>>> really solve the underlying problem because I strongly suspect that the
> >>>>> problem is still there when a numa node gets all its memory offline as
> >>>>> mentioned above.
I would really appreciate a feedback to these two as well.
> >>>>> While I completely agree that making node 0 special is wrong, I have
> >>>>> still hard time to review this very simply looking patch because all the
> >>>>> numa initialization is so spread around that this might just blow up
> >>>>> at unexpected places. IIRC we have discussed testing in the previous
> >>>>> version and David has provided a way to emulate these configurations
> >>>>> on x86. Did you manage to use those instruction for additional testing
> >>>>> on other than ppc architectures?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have tried all the steps that David mentioned and reported back at
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200511174731.GD1961@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/#u
> >>>>
> >>>> As a summary, David's steps are still not creating a memoryless/cpuless on
> >>>> x86 VM.
> >>>
> >>> Now, that is wrong. You get a memoryless/cpuless node, which is *not
> >>> online*. Once you hotplug some memory, it will switch online. Once you
> >>> remove memory, it will switch back offline.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Let me clarify, we are looking for a node 0 which is cpuless/memoryless at
> >> boot. The code in question tries to handle a cpuless/memoryless node 0 at
> >> boot.
> >
> > I was just correcting your statement, because it was wrong.
> >
> > Could be that x86 code maps PXM 1 to node 0 because PXM 1 does neither
> > have CPUs nor memory. That would imply that we can, in fact, never have
> > node 0 offline during boot.
> >
>
> Yep, looks like it.
>
> [ 0.009726] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x00 -> Node 0
> [ 0.009727] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x01 -> Node 0
> [ 0.009727] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x02 -> Node 0
> [ 0.009728] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x03 -> Node 0
> [ 0.009731] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 1 [mem 0x00000000-0x0009ffff]
> [ 0.009732] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 1 [mem 0x00100000-0xbfffffff]
> [ 0.009733] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 1 [mem 0x100000000-0x13fffffff]
This begs a question whether ppc can do the same thing?
I would swear that we've had x86 system with node 0 but I cannot really
find it and it is possible that it was not x86 after all...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-01 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-24 9:28 [PATCH v5 0/3] Offline memoryless cpuless node 0 Srikar Dronamraju
2020-06-24 9:28 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible cpus Srikar Dronamraju
2020-06-24 9:48 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-06-24 9:28 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn Srikar Dronamraju
2020-06-24 10:29 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-06-24 9:28 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Srikar Dronamraju
2020-06-29 14:58 ` Christopher Lameter
2020-06-30 4:01 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-01 12:23 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-01 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-01 10:04 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-01 10:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-01 11:01 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-01 11:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-01 11:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-01 12:21 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-07-02 6:44 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-02 8:41 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-02 14:32 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-03 9:10 ` Michal Suchánek
2020-07-03 9:24 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-03 10:59 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-03 11:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-03 11:46 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-03 12:58 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-08-07 4:32 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-07 6:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-07 10:04 ` Michal Suchánek
2020-08-12 6:01 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-08-18 7:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-18 7:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 7:49 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-07-06 16:08 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200701122110.GT2369@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).