From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D44C43331 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56362073B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="IIzrUg8j" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B56362073B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2EEC16B0008; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 04:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2796B6B000C; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 04:05:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 141FE6B0032; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 04:05:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0032.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.32]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98E16B0008 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 04:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952764DB1 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76651293180.13.price21_4a3e0f0b0d057 X-HE-Tag: price21_4a3e0f0b0d057 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4269 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com [63.128.21.74]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1585555509; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nVwRo6XO9WRKmSULb4OWrX5slFKDiMD/LCNJjQ0boIs=; b=IIzrUg8jPgrmEVQPxsZ35B7nHXAckKB4sQbtembRyfrd9dS+PE4dbkMsnv8lzdGV/uAXgF hBnc/TLm1PKNWueF9CWHY+BisQlmhKhDBbH1nYsyV1t2P1SBP+PF4N6Vq3Mg2y21nb6mgP mK1NpybUWmUdLBJJ0505XPT8Ofvp/rU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-468-l4TLxabQO2KtEB9hP7eswA-1; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 04:05:04 -0400 X-MC-Unique: l4TLxabQO2KtEB9hP7eswA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F135A801E5C; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-53.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.53]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27E25953DB; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:04:56 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Michal Hocko Cc: Hoan Tran , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Oscar Salvador , Pavel Tatashin , Mike Rapoport , Alexander Duyck , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , "David S. Miller" , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lho@amperecomputing.com, mmorana@amperecomputing.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA Message-ID: <20200330080456.GJ9942@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com> <20200329001924.GS3039@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20200330074426.GB14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200330074426.GB14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 03/30/20 at 09:44am, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sun 29-03-20 08:19:24, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 03/28/20 at 11:31am, Hoan Tran wrote: > > > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes, > > > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly. > > > > > > For example, with layout below > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111 > > > > Sorry, I read this example several times, but still don't get what it > > means. Can it be given with real hex number address as an exmaple? I > > mean just using the memory layout you have seen from some systems. The > > change looks interesting though. > > Does this make it more clear? > physical address range and its node associaion > [0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1] I later read it again, have got what Hoan is trying to say, thanks. I think the change in this patchset makes sense, still have some concern though, let me add comment in other thread.