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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 42B04C433E0 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150F0206CB for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593606077; bh=YmeQj2ek9BtbblPqlRU5NBs+n/XWsgeIt7zBBBKihCc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=pqZlMJ756cLA664ARpHq7P6ncPekQuPqLzfLhBwf7EzSgIsvucwaQkOawG+mwJmjv JByiBGVVVAY7O47jduuztoH8sIs+i9CCmPJuliNAWlRNTO37XtfCGk2HxcwtQb2m9z feCwSrsGaSDMX5kbFJLkDPlIXshPZ4zX+VKTfRUE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730515AbgGAMVP (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:21:15 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:42227 "EHLO mail-ej1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728137AbgGAMVO (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:21:14 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-f66.google.com with SMTP id i14so24373727ejr.9 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=/b+RUGrUg/ntsSCxKL5s82gEiDaQbG8Ituvi60lGYAk=; b=PlSMl+pWdvVGRpW2Lq4tLhkOhgs3bVW221IOkblfRgodHnpNW2vwo5kOZVf2wphMIy emyWdQ2GiIAiDA1mwgox6HmEY5BuIHfqDwAIBPEZocBJNuyQaRTo9dDXYHFQBY+Fyqww PSytcOwbhZUi49smmjT59bIl6irt3CnWu3U/B8W/I3mtk8Iaxra+HQxLJuDDSrye33Zp 6kNswU201Xp7lWT6NxhC+zvxwDlQtjF6vcXXQ0IJZNlNu+Q+RDowkR3SpcHxOsI6g5Q4 wH+4inaAPsd6okkZVO7nkCXCBzhWBzvwFAF3p5ow+DV1mxjxzuWtcoP2J2zbPFzWxqJ/ DQzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530i5OCfmaCpxpp1Nm6h1dLxhfPT4xLW/SK3s1IZUxQjtIV+Qrcg p0dnUKrttOqTe0VcRHTUJn4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwM754Glk3zEURKp6Dq0/LYW01GCSOKp40qjwm++RUI94oVQJQMVXVZpTlIQFzY4qbxuk1WUA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1a54:: with SMTP id j20mr22242582ejf.455.1593606072668; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-168-3.eurotel.cz. [37.188.168.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id di20sm6311781edb.26.2020.07.01.05.21.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:21:10 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Srikar Dronamraju , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Christopher Lameter , Michael Ellerman , Linus Torvalds , Gautham R Shenoy , Satheesh Rajendran Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Message-ID: <20200701122110.GT2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200624092846.9194-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200624092846.9194-4-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200701084200.GN2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200701100442.GB17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <184102af-ecf2-c834-db46-173ab2e66f51@redhat.com> <20200701110145.GC17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <0468f965-8762-76a3-93de-3987cf859927@redhat.com> <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 [2020-07-01 12:15:54]: > >> > >>> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > >>>> * Michal Hocko [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