Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:32:21 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Rafael Aquini <raquini@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/mm/numa: Do not initialize nodes twice
Message-ID: <YhOUZfWIthy/08I0@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20220218224302.5282-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20220218224302.5282-2-osalvador@suse.de>
 <YhNZQgGSZglGQvcg@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YhNfwCO3xTIavi5v@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YhNfwCO3xTIavi5v@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 21-02-22 10:47:44, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 18-02-22 23:43:02, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > > Why setting the node online saves us then? Well, simply because
> > > __try_online_node() backs off when the node is online, meaning
> > > we do not end up calling register_one_node() in the first place.
> > 
> > This is really a mess and a house built on sand. Thanks for looking into
> > it and hopefully this can get cleaned up to a saner state.
> 
> Yes, I am willing to have a deep look into that and see how we can
> improve the situation.
> 
> > This sha1 is from linux-next very likely so it won't be persistent.
> > Please drop it.
> 
> Yes, it is. I guess it is fine to not have a "Fixes" tag here, so I will
> remove it then.

Normally we use sha in Fixes tag and I am not sure how many scripts we
would confuse if there was no but I guess it is good enough to mention
the patch name in the description. Theoretically we could have folded it
to my patch but I think it would be better to have it separate because
a) it gives a nice overview of the mess we should be dealing with and b)
the original patch would likely be more convoluted than necessary.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs