From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8C46B0031 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id as1so2458459iec.25 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org. [2001:4978:20e::2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nv5si10778558igb.41.2014.04.09.08.09.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:09:37 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Define _PAGE_NUMA with unused physical address bits PMD and PTE levels Message-ID: <20140409150935.GC10526@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20140407182854.GH7292@suse.de> <5342FC0E.9080701@zytor.com> <20140407193646.GC23983@moon> <5342FFB0.6010501@zytor.com> <20140407212535.GJ7292@suse.de> <5344631D.1050203@zytor.com> <20140409150448.GE5860@phenom.dumpdata.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140409150448.GE5860@phenom.dumpdata.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Steven Noonan , Mel Gorman , Cyrill Gorcunov , David Vrabel , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linux-MM , Linux-X86 , LKML , Pavel Emelyanov 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 wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> 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: email@kvack.org