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;
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 08:54:37 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Davidoff <davidoff@qedmf.net>,
        Bob Liu <lliubbo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined
Message-ID: <Y2NzvfCjd0X4g4p4@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <CAHbLzkonsnr4yxUOpMpoch1eCVNgR5hC9YaMkPR=fSV2Uszc6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAa6QmRe1zMp8P-gZjR63Fg6KhOw+fP-v7SQWLNKuc2Y9ZxvyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2IerOXJ+ZoRTHcs@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHbLzkrBNzsorc9oCq1=ri0uq1xbQ+m+u2gQX5GYrb=Z7n4siA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2KXkVmRWOpPT/MI@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHbLzkosQf8OoL+u+gkfO5-fvCNUuDxEa08FUfks1M4AS7tmjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2KtKVpR69P+E0xT@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHbLzkpirnzJSu0SHGRbhFMsH7ZzHtL5ZMXjrBoy8r=UywVhMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAa6QmQ+4XndbtE_=mcaC5OaeK4g42dKYfY5FmYoRDTKGO-3nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkouJkixT0X_uGTrFj_qCyYikpr2j3LOo50rsY_P9OS8Xw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkouJkixT0X_uGTrFj_qCyYikpr2j3LOo50rsY_P9OS8Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 02-11-22 13:08:08, Yang Shi wrote:
[...]
> So I think we narrowed down to two options:
> 1. Preserve the interleave behavior but bail out if the target node is
> not online (it is also racy, but doesn't hurt)

I do not think there is merit in the interleave patch is dubious to say
the least.

> 2. Remove the node balance code entirely

Yes, removing the balancing makes sense but I would still hope that we
do not fail too easily if the range is populated on multiple nodes
equally. In practice it will likely not matter much I guess but setting
up all nodes with top score is just easy to achieve.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs