From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=8RrW=6O=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
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=-2.2 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 81C9AC83001
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:47:08 +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 2A09F2073E
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:47:07 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2A09F2073E
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 49CNCF6pZhzDrGG
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:47:05 +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=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com;
 receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com
Received: from mx0a-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 49CMxJ57n6zDrB2
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:35:00 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1])
 by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id
 03U4Xa7v131943; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:34:52 -0400
Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com
 [159.122.73.71])
 by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30pjmm7xbm-1
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:34:52 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 03U4P9DE011143;
 Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:34:50 GMT
Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
 (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197])
 by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 30mcu7x9b6-1
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:34:50 +0000
Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
 [9.149.105.232])
 by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
 03U4Ym6A55902454
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:34:48 GMT
Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625615204F;
 Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:34:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29])
 by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 31A5F52052;
 Thu, 30 Apr 2020 04:34:46 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:04:45 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn
Message-ID: <20200430043445.GE19958@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20200428093836.27190-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200428093836.27190-3-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200429065229.GA18304@in.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200429065229.GA18304@in.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676
 definitions=2020-04-30_01:2020-04-30,
 2020-04-30 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0
 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0
 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0
 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=836 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501
 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000
 definitions=main-2004300030
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2020-04-29 12:22:29]:

> Hello Srikar,
> 
> 
> > +		if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > +			cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> > +			if (cpu) {
> 
> Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?
> 
> > +				nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> > +				of_node_put(cpu);
> > +			}
> > +		}
> 
> Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
> of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
> should we still call node_set_online() below ?

Yeah, I think It makes sense to retain the BUG_ON and if check.

Will incorporate both of them in the next version.

> 
> 
> >  		node_set_online(nid);
> >  	}
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.20.1
> > 
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju