On 05.03.2015 [13:58:27 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > > index 0257a7d659ef..24de29b3651b 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > > > @@ -958,9 +958,17 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
> > > >
> > > > memblock_dump_all();
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * zero out the possible nodes after we parse the device-tree,
> > > > + * so that we lower the maximum NUMA node ID to what is actually
> > > > + * present.
> > > > + */
> > > > + nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
> > > > +
> > > > for_each_online_node(nid) {
> > > > unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
> > > >
> > > > + node_set(nid, node_possible_map);
> > > > get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
> > > > setup_node_data(nid, start_pfn, end_pfn);
> > > > sparse_memory_present_with_active_regions(nid);
> > >
> > > This seems a bit strange, node_possible_map is supposed to be a superset
> > > of node_online_map and this loop is iterating over node_online_map to set
> > > nodes in node_possible_map.
> >
> > Yeah. Though at this point in boot I don't think it matters that the
> > two maps are out-of-sync temporarily.
> >
> > But it would simpler to just set the possible map to be the online
> > map. That would also maintain the invariant that the possible map is
> > always a superset of the online map.
> >
> > Or did I miss a detail there (sleep deprived parent mode).
> >
>
> I think reset_numa_cpu_lookup_table() which iterates over the possible
> map, and thus only a subset of nodes now, may be concerning.
I think you are confusing the CPU online map and the NUMA node online
map. reset_numa_cpu_lookup_table is a cpu->node mapping, only called at
boot-time, and iterates over the CPU online map, which is unaltered by
my patch.
> I'm not sure why this is being proposed as a powerpc patch and now a
> patch for mem_cgroup_css_alloc().
I think mem_cgroup_css_alloc() is just an example of a larger issue. I
should have made that clearer in my changelog. Even if we change
mem_cgroup_css_alloc(), I think we want to fix the node_possible_map on
powerpc to be accurate at run-time, just like x86 does.
> In other words, why do we have to allocate for all possible nodes? We
> should only be allocating for online nodes in N_MEMORY with mem
> hotplug disabled initially and then have a mem hotplug callback
> implemented to alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info() for nodes that
> transition from memoryless -> memory. The extra bonus is that
> alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info() need never allocate remote memory and
> the TODO in that function can be removed.
This is a good idea, and seems like it can be a follow-on parallel patch
to the one I provided (which does need an updated changelog now).
Thanks,
Nish
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
