From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.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,
cai@lca.pw, 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, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
jhogan@kernel.org, mattst88@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com,
gor@linux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, bp@alien8.de, 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,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
tbogendoerfer@suse.de, paul.burton@mips.com,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
robin.murphy@arm.com, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:36:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7fe82a6a-2183-3d9d-2740-0d4fe123b813@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190917100854.GC1872@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 2019/9/17 18:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-09-19 17:53:57, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 2019/9/17 17:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 17-09-19 14:20:11, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>>> On 2019/9/17 13:28, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>>> Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> But we cannot really copy the page allocator logic. Simply because the
>>>>>> page allocator doesn't enforce the near node affinity. It just picks it
>>>>>> up as a preferred node but then it is free to fallback to any other numa
>>>>>> node. This is not the case here and node_to_cpumask_map will only restrict
>>>>>> to the particular node's cpus which would have really non deterministic
>>>>>> behavior depending on where the code is executed. So in fact we really
>>>>>> want to return cpu_online_mask for NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some arches were already NUMA_NO_NODE aware, but they return cpu_all_mask,
>>>>>> which should be identical with cpu_online_mask when those arches do not
>>>>>> support cpu hotplug, this patch also changes them to return cpu_online_mask
>>>>>> in order to be consistent and use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of "-1".
>>>>>
>>>>> Except some of those arches *do* support CPU hotplug, powerpc and sparc
>>>>> at least. So switching from cpu_all_mask to cpu_online_mask is a
>>>>> meaningful change.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, thanks for pointing out.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't mean it's wrong, but you need to explain why it's the right
>>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> How about adding the below to the commit log:
>>>> Even if some of the arches do support CPU hotplug, it does not make sense
>>>> to return the cpu that has been hotplugged.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestion?
>>>
>>> Again, for the third time, I believe. Make it a separate patch please.
>>> There is absolutely no reason to conflate those two things.
>>
>> Ok, thanks.
>> Will make the cpu_all_mask -> cpu_online_mask change a separate patch.
>
> Thanks. This really needs per arch maintainer to check closely.
>
>> Also, do you think it is better to resend this as individual patches for each arch
>> or have all these changes in a single patch? I am not sure which is the common
>> practice for a multi-arches changes like this.
>
> It really depends on arch maintainers. Both approaches have some pros
> and cons. A single patch is more compact and and parts are not going to
> get lost in noise. They might generate some conflicts with parallel
> changes. I suspect a conflict risk is quite low in this code considering
> from a recent activity. A follow up arch specific patch would have to be
> routed via Andrew as well.
>
> If Andrew is ok routing it through his tree and none of the arch
> maintainers is opposed then I would go with a single patch.
Ok, I will try a single patch for NUMA_NO_NODE aware change first.
"cpu_all_mask -> cpu_online_mask" change seems a little controversial,
and may need deeper investigation.
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-17 11:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-16 13:28 [PATCH v5] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-17 5:28 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-09-17 6:20 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-17 9:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-17 9:53 ` Yunsheng Lin
2019-09-17 10:08 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-17 11:36 ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
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=7fe82a6a-2183-3d9d-2740-0d4fe123b813@huawei.com \
--to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tbogendoerfer@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
/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).