Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Optimized copy default
 topology in sched_init_numa()
In-Reply-To: <e5eed9c9-afd4-e88c-dbee-7fef2e76043a@bytedance.com>
References: <20220627105349.80715-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
 <xhsmh35fhgcww.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <e5eed9c9-afd4-e88c-dbee-7fef2e76043a@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:53:12 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmhtu7m72fr.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 11/07/22 18:28, Hao Jia wrote:
> On 2022/7/4 Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>> It's not a very hot path but I guess this lets you shave off a bit of boot
>> time... While you're at it, you could add an early
> Thanks for your time and suggestion.
>>
>>    if (nr_node_ids == 1)
>>            return;
>>
>
> This will cause the values of sched_domains_numa_levels and
> sched_max_numa_distance to be different from before, and
> sched_domains_numa_levels may cause the return value of
> sched_numa_find_closest() to be different.
> I'm not sure if it will cause problems.
>

True, we need to be careful here, but those are all static so they get
initialized to sensible defaults (zero / NULL pointer).

sched_numa_find_closest() will return nr_cpu_ids which make sense, so I
think we can get away with an early return

>> since !NUMA systems still go through sched_init_numa() if they have a
>> kernel with CONFIG_NUMA (which should be most of them nowdays) and IIRC
>> they end up with an unused NODE topology level.
>>
>
> I'm confused why most !NUMA systems enable CONFIG_NUMA in the kernel?
> Maybe for scalability?
>

It just makes things easier on a distribution point of view - just ship a
single kernel image everyone can use, rather than N different images for N
different types of systems.

AFAIA having CONFIG_NUMA on an UMA (!NUMA) system isn't bad, it just adds
more things in the sched_domain_topology during boot time which end up
being unused.