Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102b:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x11csp515840ybt; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 04:03:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxrq4SCAcuxACAEhqtczHCOTGW2uOinVfMwRJqEyr4xT1GZaZ33vJAZamjpszX0Dp3vGESz X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:426c:: with SMTP id nx20mr21959502ejb.548.1593601403113; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 04:03:23 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1593601403; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=SMlhV8JQ9e7P4bqIFS5AV0s00QYItet7Al/qcpnPLTydZm3kr2jZXz+CENjkYSF8bM +/lnE+EUx/csRD6+TjaEIiTEPKL6h8BXUPZaoKBiom20FhDK6KZieS0hFFwH+75PFzIQ CRxgY3JppJhQ997rEgL0blIZe8A32qdLhwDQITjMa9T7q1qpWmMyE5UOORvRh4+Knya2 pYeSYvROWDrvi/LP1QWy2J4ObjRaJAGmRt0mYsCcXuLyy3BQhsoEcdZ4sqguQuudXCPG 7IJLn1Jup4Clb1GE4UUlhrFaWC2mFuHKrJrfjxL3WaVr59Oc63OogM45peEVy+EPn3Of Zbag== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=f4PZnHt4b8/L7VQHALL3dbQ68Qp44HWP14od4FLSJsg=; b=Pl5WaaJ1gJ9VjAnc+VsSH3l/BxjpikZAFkXaj/Jk2bRBJhp85HAKM136bLzvY2KUPX YM2uQqGpS0H201njtbgeq0D8kcysiL0gR41swUMjqoZtV/eRbx3Nz1wDF14mLLpkwe9A rRVLjXEU2/Y8EsyrB0ZeHsoyu+DFDUJsWf7edmh1XTeHnrGWXKMLBZPu1LCpbEt5fjs9 IYEKgWRjlZ4rr8gHA4U+jyvixha49g2wiqaMStpbc/H2KYBMajF1uCX3vH7DD7GgxYec M7+wjp9Q2NgZK0BpKY/jj1+WNbn4Y2caapvdSJ/NS20yhzLTjHjlLQouemt1jkWgAbvO e+Ow== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q26si3555114eja.585.2020.07.01.04.02.59; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 04:03:23 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730015AbgGALCe (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:02:34 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:49297 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729791AbgGALCe (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:02:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 061B1hkj016074; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:02:19 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 320s8ar11p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 07:02:19 -0400 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 061B1tO9017308; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:02:18 -0400 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 320s8ar102-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 07:02:18 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 061AuTVk003987; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:02:16 GMT Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.192]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31wwcgt8ae-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:02:16 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 061B0sJc62062930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:00:54 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F41AE0E3; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:02:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A6EAE0F4; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:01:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:01:46 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 16:31:45 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Christopher Lameter , Michael Ellerman , Linus Torvalds , Gautham R Shenoy , Satheesh Rajendran Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Message-ID: <20200701110145.GC17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20200624092846.9194-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200624092846.9194-4-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200701084200.GN2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200701100442.GB17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <184102af-ecf2-c834-db46-173ab2e66f51@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <184102af-ecf2-c834-db46-173ab2e66f51@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-01_07:2020-07-01,2020-07-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 cotscore=-2147483648 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2007010077 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]: > On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]: > > > >> > >>> > >>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The > >>> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the > >>> device-tree and resource-dump > >>> > >>> 3. When the dummy node is present, single node non-Numa systems end up showing > >>> up as NUMA systems and numa_balancing gets enabled. This will mean we take > >>> the hit from the unnecessary numa hinting faults. > >> > >> I have to say that I dislike the node online/offline state and directly > >> exporting that to the userspace. Users should only care whether the node > >> has memory/cpus. Numa nodes can be online without any memory. Just > >> offline all the present memory blocks but do not physically hot remove > >> them and you are in the same situation. If users are confused by an > >> output of tools like numactl -H then those could be updated and hide > >> nodes without any memory&cpus. > >> > >> The autonuma problem sounds interesting but again this patch doesn't > >> really solve the underlying problem because I strongly suspect that the > >> problem is still there when a numa node gets all its memory offline as > >> mentioned above. > >> > >> While I completely agree that making node 0 special is wrong, I have > >> still hard time to review this very simply looking patch because all the > >> numa initialization is so spread around that this might just blow up > >> at unexpected places. IIRC we have discussed testing in the previous > >> version and David has provided a way to emulate these configurations > >> on x86. Did you manage to use those instruction for additional testing > >> on other than ppc architectures? > >> > > > > I have tried all the steps that David mentioned and reported back at > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200511174731.GD1961@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/#u > > > > As a summary, David's steps are still not creating a memoryless/cpuless on > > x86 VM. > > Now, that is wrong. You get a memoryless/cpuless node, which is *not > online*. Once you hotplug some memory, it will switch online. Once you > remove memory, it will switch back offline. > Let me clarify, we are looking for a node 0 which is cpuless/memoryless at boot. The code in question tries to handle a cpuless/memoryless node 0 at boot. With the steps that you gave the node 0 was always populated, node 1 or some other node would be memoryless/cpuless and offline. But that should have no impact by patch. I don't see how adding/hotplugging/removing memory to a node after boot is going to affect the changes that I have made. Please do correct me if I have misunderstood. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju