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:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:31:25 +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>,
        Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0
 offline
Message-ID: <20200630040125.GA31617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20200624092846.9194-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20200624092846.9194-4-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006291456550.27163@www.lameter.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006291456550.27163@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> [2020-06-29 14:58:40]:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> 
> > Currently Linux kernel with CONFIG_NUMA on a system with multiple
> > possible nodes, marks node 0 as online at boot.  However in practice,
> > there are systems which have node 0 as memoryless and cpuless.
> 
> Maybe add something to explain why you are not simply mapping the
> existing memory to NUMA node 0 which is after all just a numbering scheme
> used by the kernel and can be used arbitrarily?
> 

I thought Michal Hocko already gave a clear picture on why mapping is a bad
idea. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200316085425.GB11482@dhcp22.suse.cz/t/#u
Are you suggesting that we add that as part of the changelog?

> This could be seen more as a bug in the arch code during the setup of NUMA
> nodes. The two nodes are created by the firmwware / bootstrap code after
> all. Just do not do it?
> 

- The arch/setup code in powerpc is not onlining these nodes. 
- Later on cpus/memory in node 0 can be onlined.
- Firmware in this case Phyp is an independent code by itself.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju