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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 04993C3A5A2 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:34:20 +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 37887217D7 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:34:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 37887217D7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.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 46N0c854fgzDqLW for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:34:16 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com (client-ip=45.249.212.191; helo=huawei.com; envelope-from=linyunsheng@huawei.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.191]) (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 46N0Yc3XtGzDqbg for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:32:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2C5574F5198C842DE6B7; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:31:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.74.191.121) by DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:31:48 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86 To: Peter Zijlstra References: <1567231103-13237-1-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <1567231103-13237-3-git-send-email-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <20190831085539.GG2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <4d89c688-49e4-a2aa-32ee-65e36edcd913@huawei.com> <20190831161247.GM2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190902072542.GN2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5fa2aa99-89fa-cd41-b090-36a23cfdeb73@huawei.com> <20190902125644.GQ2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1f48081c-c9d6-8f3e-9559-8b0bec98f125@huawei.com> <20190903071111.GU2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Yunsheng Lin Message-ID: <06eee8d0-ce56-03da-30a5-6b07e989a5e0@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:31:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190903071111.GU2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.74.191.121] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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: , Cc: 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-mips@vger.kernel.org, mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, will@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, x86@kernel.org, rppt@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, dledford@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jhogan@kernel.org, nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mattst88@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, 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, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, cai@lca.pw, akpm@linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, davem@davemloft.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 2019/9/3 15:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 02:19:04PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2019/9/2 20:56, Peter Zijlstra 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. >> >> Is it possible that the node id set by device_add() become invalid >> if the node is offlined, then dev_to_node() may return a invalid >> node id. > > In that case I would expect the device to go away too. Once the memory > controller goes away, the PCI bus connected to it cannot continue to > function. Ok. To summarize the discussion in order to for me to understand it correctly: 1) Make sure device_add() set to default node0 to a device if ACPI/BIOS does not set the node id and it has not no parent device. 2) Use '(unsigned)node_id >= nr_node_ids' to fix the CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS version of cpumask_of_node() for x86 and arm64, x86 just has a fix from you now, a patch for arm64 is also needed. 3) Maybe fix some other the sign bug for node id checking through the kernel using the '(unsigned)node_id >= nr_node_ids'. Please see if I understand it correctly or miss something. Maybe I can begin by sending a patch about item one to see if everyone is ok with the idea? > >> From the comment in select_fallback_rq(), it seems that a node can >> be offlined, not sure if node offline process has taken cared of that? >> >> /* >> * If the node that the CPU is on has been offlined, cpu_to_node() >> * will return -1. There is no CPU on the node, and we should >> * select the CPU on the other node. >> */ > > Ugh, so I disagree with that notion. cpu_to_node() mapping should be > fixed, you simply cannot change it after boot, too much stuff relies on > it. > > Setting cpu_to_node to -1 on node offline is just wrong. But alas, it > seems this is already so.