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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 961EFC43331 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5530A20714 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:58:48 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5530A20714 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E5A8E6B0008; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DE47F6B000C; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:58:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CAB916B0032; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:58:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0131.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.131]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1416B0008 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6952D181AD0A3 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:58:47 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76651579494.07.wish76_2f9b05cc05b42 X-HE-Tag: wish76_2f9b05cc05b42 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6215 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com (mail-wr1-f68.google.com [209.85.221.68]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id w10so20874686wrm.4 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:58:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RAW4dI5AqDOZg2OFBhTf/EVo0m3y8bG8p0ACgPsFWtE=; b=jkNMY7qkTT4AypXhXkU1grGzm0k/2E4s9GW/kFjGewbc8tYsYQsAgCMQNM5W9Stayu bOQm97YZidCSL18qpFVhulAejV5ngWNoKnYF68BXqsn7pFX4SKMXAQv2nMtFkvWTp/TA R4rQZmUz2pRpF+eRST14UavHMAvhEyvFe6lViT6q0EHsKNXgDklC9uFauj0WIW/+WVV2 YQS+pFdFwmh9T5/eCEdrOMjFTlYehM7lxuabE4PDxIFtEH0gxhdmn6ylHspvUfMS1srj c+ARb0aT5rfOCzxNLsV31wTohc2pdu5ZRueAuFDfJBNnwlyw2rJ1qkkw1QAVQbeMtgYK jN7w== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3Z5DHcWTe7grGdAIPRMMqrUePIE3bbtZLpdWc0DqO/FMmJQonP udXjB9mh5yXaL3nRrMj5pSo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vs2ADx9iXcEtG7i4t0y2sXGzETHyH4fleW4u+faHVS+T4YFrF+aBgCdG9nD2ekBmdttmSU8rw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:460f:: with SMTP id t15mr14129460wrq.413.1585562325855; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-180-223.eurotel.cz. [37.188.180.223]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b199sm17339431wme.23.2020.03.30.02.58.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:58:43 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Hoan Tran , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Oscar Salvador , Pavel Tatashin , 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: <20200330095843.GF14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1585420282-25630-1-git-send-email-Hoan@os.amperecomputing.com> <20200330074246.GA14243@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200330092127.GB30942@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200330092127.GB30942@linux.ibm.com> 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 Mon 30-03-20 12:21:27, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:42:46AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, 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 > > > > > > Note: > > > - Memory from low to high > > > - 0/1: Node id > > > - x: Invalid memory of a node > > > > > > When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES > > > config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id. > > > Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below > > > when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1. > > > > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111 > > > > > > This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables > > > this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables > > > CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA. > > > > I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is > > a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might > > be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid > > which is clearly an overkill. > > > > Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The > > history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried > > to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent > > NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd > > ("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any > > reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether > > reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle > > dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an > > arch specific code. > > Well, back then early_pfn_in_nid() was arch-dependant, today everyone > except ia64 rely on HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP. What would it take to make ia64 use HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP? I would really love to see that thing go away. It is causing problems when people try to use memblock api. > So, if the memblock node map > is correct, that using CONFIG_NUMA instead of CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES > would only mean that early_pfn_in_nid() will cost several cycles more on > architectures that didn't select CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES (i.e. arm64 > and sh). Do we have any idea on how much of an overhead that is? Because this is per each pfn so it can accumulate a lot! > Agian, ia64 is an exception here. Thanks for the clarification! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs