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:   Fri, 8 May 2020 18:51:30 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.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>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible cpus
Message-ID: <20200508132130.GC1961@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20200501031128.19584-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200501031128.19584-2-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005022254170.28355@www.lameter.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005022254170.28355@www.lameter.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

* Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> [2020-05-02 22:55:16]:

> On Fri, 1 May 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 
> > -	for_each_present_cpu(cpu)
> > -		numa_setup_cpu(cpu);
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Powerpc with CONFIG_NUMA always used to have a node 0,
> > +		 * even if it was memoryless or cpuless. For all cpus that
> > +		 * are possible but not present, cpu_to_node() would point
> > +		 * to node 0. To remove a cpuless, memoryless dummy node,
> > +		 * powerpc need to make sure all possible but not present
> > +		 * cpu_to_node are set to a proper node.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (cpu_present(cpu))
> > +			numa_setup_cpu(cpu);
> > +		else
> > +			set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, first_online_node);
> > +	}
> >  }
> 
> 
> Can this be folded into numa_setup_cpu?
> 
> This looks more like numa_setup_cpu needs to change?
> 

We can fold this into numa_setup_cpu().

However till now we were sure that numa_setup_cpu() would be called only for
a present cpu. That assumption will change.
+ (non-consequential) an additional check everytime cpu is hotplugged in.

If Michael Ellerman is okay with the change, I can fold it in.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju