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=-2.2 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 3493FC3A5A7 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189F720820 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731586AbfIBM0M (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:26:12 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:5711 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729893AbfIBM0L (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:26:11 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS410-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 17A6940E61A165018A38; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:26:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.74.191.121) by DGGEMS410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:25:57 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 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> From: Yunsheng Lin Message-ID: <5fa2aa99-89fa-cd41-b090-36a23cfdeb73@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:25:24 +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: <20190902072542.GN2369@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 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? 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(). > >>> 2) is already true today, cpumask_of_node() requires a valid node_id. >> >> Ok, most of the user does check node_id before calling >> cpumask_of_node(), but does a little different type of checking: >> >> 1) some does " < 0" check; >> 2) some does "== NUMA_NO_NODE" check; >> 3) some does ">= MAX_NUMNODES" check; >> 4) some does "< 0 || >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node)" check. > > The one true way is: > > '(unsigned)node_id >= nr_node_ids' I missed the magic of the "unsigned" in your previous reply. > >>> 3) is just wrong and increases overhead for everyone. >> >> Ok, cpumask_of_node() is also used in some critical path such >> as scheduling, which may not need those checking, the overhead >> is unnecessary. >> >> But for non-critical path such as setup or configuration path, >> it better to have consistent checking, and also simplify the >> user code that calls cpumask_of_node(). >> >> Do you think it is worth the trouble to add a new function >> such as cpumask_of_node_check(maybe some other name) to do >> consistent checking? >> >> Or caller just simply check if dev_to_node()'s return value is >> NUMA_NO_NODE before calling cpumask_of_node()? > > It is not a matter of convenience. The function is called > cpumask_of_node(), when node < 0 || node >= nr_node_ids, it is not a > valid node, therefore the function shouldn't return anything except an > error. what do you mean by error? What I can think is three type of errors: 1) return NULL, this way it seems cpumask_of_node() also leave the job to the function that calls it. 2) cpu_none_mask, I am not sure what this means, maybe it means there is no cpu on the same node with the device? 3) give a warning, stack dump, or even a BUG_ON? I would prefer the second one, and implement the third one when the CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is selected. Any suggestion? > > Also note that the CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS version of > cpumask_of_node() already does this (although it wants the below fix). Thanks for the note and example.