Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:22:29 +0530
From:   Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn
Message-ID: <20200429065229.GA18304@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20200428093836.27190-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200428093836.27190-3-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200428093836.27190-3-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Srikar,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:08:35PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Node id queried from the static device tree may not
> be correct. For example: it may always show 0 on a shared processor.
> Hence prefer the node id queried from vphn and fallback on the device tree
> based node id if vphn query fails.
> 
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
> Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> Changelog v1:->v2:
> - Rebased to v5.7-rc3
> 
>  arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index b3615b7fdbdf..281531340230 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -719,20 +719,20 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
>  	 */
>  	for_each_present_cpu(i) {
>  		struct device_node *cpu;
> -		int nid;
> -
> -		cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> -		BUG_ON(!cpu);
> -		nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> -		of_node_put(cpu);
> +		int nid = vphn_get_nid(i);
> 
>  		/*
>  		 * Don't fall back to default_nid yet -- we will plug
>  		 * cpus into nodes once the memory scan has discovered
>  		 * the topology.
>  		 */
> -		if (nid < 0)
> -			continue;


> +		if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> +			cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> +			if (cpu) {

Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?

> +				nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> +				of_node_put(cpu);
> +			}
> +		}

Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
should we still call node_set_online() below ?


>  		node_set_online(nid);
>  	}
> 
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.