Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:08:10 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rientjes@google.com, mhocko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] mm/vmscan.c: remove cpu online notification for now
Message-Id: <20200219120810.c7677fa58594f5423549f59d@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200218224422.3407-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200218224422.3407-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:22 +0800 Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> kswapd kernel thread starts either with a CPU affinity set to the full
> cpu mask of its target node or without any affinity at all if the node
> is CPUless. There is a cpu hotplug callback (kswapd_cpu_online) that
> implements an elaborate way to update this mask when a cpu is onlined.
> 
> It is not really clear whether there is any actual benefit from this
> scheme. Completely CPU-less NUMA nodes rarely gain a new CPU during
> runtime.

This is the case across all platforms, all architectures, all users for
the next N years?  I'm surprised that we know this with sufficient
confidence.  Can you explain how you came to make this assertion?

> Drop the code for that reason. If there is a real usecase then
> we can resurrect and simplify the code.