Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Define _PAGE_NUMA with unused physical address bits PMD and PTE levels

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:04:48AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:59:09PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 04/08/2014 01:51 PM, Steven Noonan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:16 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > >> <snark>
> > >>
> > >> Of course, it would also be preferable if Amazon (or anything else) didn't need Xen PV :(
> > > 
> > > Well Amazon doesn't expose NUMA on PV, only on HVM guests.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, but Amazon is one of the main things keeping Xen PV alive as far as
> > I can tell, which means the support gets built in, and so on.
> 
> Taking the snarkiness aside, the issue here is that even on guests
> without NUMA exposed the problem shows up. That is the 'mknuma' are
> still being called even if the guest topology is not NUMA!
> 
> Which brings a question - why isn't the mknuma and its friends gatted by
> an jump_label machinery or such?
> 
> Mel, any particular reasons why it couldn't be done this way?

Hmm,. I thought we disabled all that when there was only the 1 node. All
this should be driven from task_tick_numa() which only gets called when
numabalancing_enabled, and that _should_ be false when nr_nodes == 1.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>