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, 10 Aug 2023 11:01:46 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc:     mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        Wen Xiong <wenxiong@linux.ibm.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pingfan Liu <piliu@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 01/14] blk-mq: add blk_mq_max_nr_hw_queues()
Message-ID: <ZNRTGrRuwf69EgnE@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20230808104239.146085-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
 <20230808104239.146085-2-ming.lei@redhat.com>
 <20230809134401.GA31852@lst.de>
 <ZNQqt1C0pXspGl3d@fedora>
 <ZNQ64xhCIBU6XM/5@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
 <ZNRGNsRzEJfzUEzH@fedora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZNRGNsRzEJfzUEzH@fedora>
Precedence: bulk

On 08/10/23 at 10:06am, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 09:18:27AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 08/10/23 at 08:09am, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 03:44:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but we can't just do random
> > > > is_kdump checks, and it's not going to get better by resending it again and
> > > > again.  If kdump kernels limit the number of possible CPUs, it needs to
> > > > reflected in cpu_possible_map and we need to use that information.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Can you look at previous kdump/arch guys' comment about kdump usage &
> > > num_possible_cpus?
> > > 
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/CAF+s44RuqswbosY9kMDx35crviQnxOeuvgNsuE75Bb0Y2Jg2uw@mail.gmail.com/
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/ZKz912KyFQ7q9qwL@MiWiFi-R3L-srv/
> > > 
> > > The point is that kdump kernels does not limit the number of possible CPUs.
> > > 
> > > 1) some archs support 'nr_cpus=1' for kdump kernel, which is fine, since
> > > num_possible_cpus becomes 1.
> > 
> > Yes, "nr_cpus=" is strongly suggested in kdump kernel because "nr_cpus="
> > limits the possible cpu numbers, while "maxcpuss=" only limits the cpu
> > number which can be brought up during bootup. We noticed this diference
> > because a large number of possible cpus will cost more memory in kdump
> > kernel. e.g percpu initialization, even though kdump kernel have set
> > "maxcpus=1". 
> > 
> > Currently x86 and arm64 all support "nr_cpus=". Pingfan ever spent much
> > effort to make patches to add "nr_cpus=" support to ppc64, seems ppc64
> > dev and maintainers do not care about it. Finally the patches are not
> > accepted, and the work is not continued.
> > 
> > Now, I am wondering what is the barrier to add "nr_cpus=" to power ach.
> > Can we reconsider adding 'nr_cpus=' to power arch since real issue
> > occurred in kdump kernel?
> 
> If 'nr_cpus=' can be supported on ppc64, this patchset isn't needed.
> 
> > 
> > As for this patchset, it can be accpeted so that no failure in kdump
> > kernel is seen on ARCHes w/o "nr_cpus=" support? My personal opinion.
> 
> IMO 'nr_cpus=' support should be preferred, given it is annoying to
> maintain two kinds of implementation for kdump kernel from driver
> viewpoint. I guess kdump things can be simplified too with supporting
> 'nr_cpus=' only.

Yes, 'nr_cpus=' is ideal. Not sure if there's some underlying concerns so
that power people decided to not support it.