linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 13:20:08 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200318075008.GE4879@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200316085425.GB11482@dhcp22.suse.cz>

* Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> [2020-03-16 09:54:25]:

> On Sun 15-03-20 14:20:05, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > 
> > > Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> > > possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot.  However in practice,
> > > there are systems which have node 0 as memoryless and cpuless.
> > 
> > Would it not be better and simpler to require that node 0 always has
> > memory (and processors)? A  mininum operational set?
> 
> I do not think you can simply ignore the reality. I cannot say that I am
> a fan of memoryless/cpuless numa configurations but they are a sad
> reality of different LPAR configurations. We have to deal with them.
> Besides that I do not really see any strong technical arguments to lack
> a support for those crippled configurations. We do have zonelists that
> allow to do reasonable decisions on memoryless nodes. So no, I do not
> think that this is a viable approach.
> 

I agree with Michal, kernel should accept the reality and work with
different Lpar configurations.

> > We can dynamically number the nodes right? So just make sure that the
> > firmware properly creates memory on node 0?
> 
> Are you suggesting that the OS would renumber NUMA nodes coming
> from FW just to satisfy node 0 existence? If yes then I believe this is
> really a bad idea because it would make HW/LPAR configuration matching
> to the resulting memory layout really hard to follow.
> 
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

Michal, Vlastimil, Christoph and others, do you have any more comments,
suggestions or any other feedback. If not, can you please add your
reviewed-by, acked etc.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-18  7:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-11 11:02 [PATCH 0/3] Offline memoryless cpuless node 0 Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-11 11:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible cpus Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-11 11:57   ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-12  5:27     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-12  8:23       ` Sachin Sant
2020-03-12  9:30         ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-03-12 13:14           ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-12 13:51             ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-03-12 16:13               ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-12 16:41                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-03-13  9:47                   ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-03-13 11:04                     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-13 11:38                       ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-03-16  8:15                         ` Joonsoo Kim
2020-03-13 11:22                   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-16  9:06                   ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-17 13:44                     ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-03-17 14:01                       ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-11 11:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-11 11:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Srikar Dronamraju
2020-03-15 14:20   ` Christopher Lameter
2020-03-16  8:54     ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-18  7:50       ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2020-03-18 18:57       ` Christopher Lameter

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=20200318075008.GE4879@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.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=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --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).