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:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@intel.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] lib: add test for for_each_numa_{cpu,hop_mask}()
In-Reply-To: <ZEmOxpgZqyoHcMqu@yury-ThinkPad>
References: <20230420051946.7463-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20230420051946.7463-8-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <xhsmh8rehkxzz.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <ZEi7n4ZJgF2o8Ps9@yury-ThinkPad>
 <xhsmhttx3j93u.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <ZEmOxpgZqyoHcMqu@yury-ThinkPad>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:35:14 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmho7n9k6r1.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 26/04/23 13:51, Yury Norov wrote:
>> I realized I only wrote half the relevant code - comparing node IDs is
>> meaningless, I meant to compare distances as we walk through the
>> CPUs... I tested the below against a few NUMA topologies and it seems to be
>> sane:
>> 
>> @@ -756,12 +773,23 @@ static void __init test_for_each_numa(void)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned int cpu, node;
>>  
>> -	for (node = 0; node < sched_domains_numa_levels; node++) {
>> -		unsigned int hop, c = 0;
>> +	for_each_node(node) {
>> +		unsigned int start_cpu, prev_dist, hop = 0;
>> +
>> +		cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
>> +		prev_dist = node_distance(node, node);
>> +		start_cpu = cpu;
>>  
>>  		rcu_read_lock();
>> -		for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask)
>> -			expect_eq_uint(cpumask_local_spread(c++, node), cpu);
>> +
>> +		/* Assert distance is monotonically increasing */
>> +		for_each_numa_cpu(cpu, hop, node, cpu_online_mask) {
>> +			unsigned int dist = node_distance(cpu_to_node(cpu), cpu_to_node(start_cpu));
>
> Interestingly, node_distance() is an arch-specific function. Generic
> implementation is quite useless:
>
>  #define node_distance(from,to)  ((from) == (to) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE)
>
> Particularly, arm64 takes the above. With node_distance() implemented
> like that, we can barely test something...
>

riscv and arm64 rely on drivers/base/arch_numa.c to provide
__node_distance() (cf. CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA).

x86, sparc, powerpc and ia64 define __node_distance()
loongarch and mips define their own node_distance().

So all of those archs will have a usable node_distance(), the others won't
and that means the scheduler can't do anything about it - the scheduler
relies on node_distance() to understand the topolgoy!