Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:6744:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w4csp4840462pxu; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSqk3JdCFEvF9gYtKOGxyVggjwZdNF+mV7BYhL6pQEK3jVtD5YpbG2vBmHTrDpdMRieaM2 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:76d5:: with SMTP id q21mr1435440ejn.415.1603287835018; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1603287835; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=N48DxPwly86GE9mK64y6vt/nbpHCRCGxasjuc+xbQffb/Ybn9Vn52i/AHX20cPiQ+B 5y5x+gIFRFuL8zyBnZhH7L1Ikyhh3cFNb8l35AzbiHqxRZy7XPJ0RLiH/0DaQBecXUA6 XGv8be6YHUc6oBDUOtN7yD7m+9A/Xt6e14HCACMrIrylj1FGH1Y0pib3XZWnntXt8dog 1RKdudIxtfkILFdUGBi1sjFMJg43oYQuMw3nXHeckoU07D0LErj1cT9dERl19cZr4WA9 w5zok8hhBS+NYNunEK9TGk0k92QedDFJUdlJTxXL37D0l6xqvGpCz5VcGMnJNVjAaVRM bSjA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :organization:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date; bh=rUErf05+4z1hBm8ZzqZfYlN2n9BwExnEwnp9QEupDg4=; b=LfUEte28pCou4Q6mZ38D8e1wTEJOIrbrmf9fGRs260z2RzWUJpktDH9y+t/2Y19RJb w58yPpvdHvFHb2ubk0XO8NaudvebTsx1GqJSIVcB8gQ0G+JgjEnVgIXg/ry9mZPrVHjx dVWM0O3w/zbX4r77jPVZBgOZ6Upkf9CRraAjm3BfNvesiYX0wcYYTP5lASwqQZtKxPER D2Q+CMbWxKg8domT6fmM0NILkls4n6VmQEYZPLXC6pyMAXcfOJBnGQe+8/ItyOGpnx8K intozn4Ty5Bw727AUe8nyQAFxeH9e57C+1a78/TDJ0f9wH5RYHhX5fecKlwzUQ1pNfQw Kf0A== 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 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d21si1260675edz.146.2020.10.21.06.43.32; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:55 -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 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2441855AbgJULEB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:04:01 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:2997 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2439261AbgJULEA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:04:00 -0400 Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4D152331F30F320DC73; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:03:59 +0100 (IST) Received: from localhost (10.52.124.50) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:03:58 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:02:01 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Anshuman Khandual CC: Valentin Schneider , Vanshidhar Konda , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: NUMA: Kconfig: Increase max number of nodes Message-ID: <20201021110201.00002092@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <9e14c0d3-9204-fb32-31db-5b3f98639cba@arm.com> References: <20201020173409.1266576-1-vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> <9e14c0d3-9204-fb32-31db-5b3f98639cba@arm.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Originating-IP: [10.52.124.50] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml727-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.78) To lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:43:21 +0530 Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 10/20/2020 11:39 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Nit on the subject: this only increases the default, the max is still 2¹⁰. > > Agreed. > > > > > On 20/10/20 18:34, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: > >> The current arm64 max NUMA nodes default to 4. Today's arm64 systems can > >> reach or exceed 16. Increase the number to 64 (matching x86_64). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >> index 893130ce1626..3e69d3c981be 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >> @@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ config NUMA > >> config NODES_SHIFT > >> int "Maximum NUMA Nodes (as a power of 2)" > >> range 1 10 > >> - default "2" > >> + default "6" > > > > This leads to more statically allocated memory for things like node to CPU > > maps (see uses of MAX_NUMNODES), but that shouldn't be too much of an > > issue. > > The smaller systems should not be required to waste those memory in > a default case, unless there is a real and available larger system > with those increased nodes. > > > > > AIUI this also directly correlates to how many more page->flags bits are > > required: are we sure the max 10 works on any aarch64 platform? I'm > > We will have to test that. Besides 256 (2 ^ 8) is the first threshold > to be crossed here. > > > genuinely asking here, given that I'm mostly a stranger to the mm > > world. The default should be something we're somewhat confident works > > everywhere. > > Agreed. Do we really need to match X86 right now ? Do we really have > systems that has 64 nodes ? We should not increase the default node > value and then try to solve some new problems, when there might not > be any system which could even use that. I would suggest increase > NODES_SHIFT value upto as required by a real and available system. I'm not going to give precise numbers on near future systems but it is public that we ship 8 NUMA node ARM64 systems today. Things will get more interesting as CXL and CCIX enter the market on ARM systems, given chances are every CXL device will look like another NUMA node (CXL spec says they should be presented as such) and you may be able to rack up lots of them. So I'd argue minimum that makes sense today is 16 nodes, but looking forward even a little and 64 is not a great stretch. I'd make the jump to 64 so we can forget about this again for a year or two. People will want to run today's distros on these new machines and we'd rather not have to go around all the distros asking them to carry a patch increasing this count (I assume they are already carrying such a patch due to those 8 node systems) Jonathan > > > > >> depends on NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES > >> help > >> Specify the maximum number of NUMA Nodes available on the target > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel