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 79C31C433DF for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EC120772 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 26EC120772 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 6B7318D0034; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 641A68D0013; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:21:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 508288D0034; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:21:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0073.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.73]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374C98D0013 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAE3180AD802 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:14 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76989416868.21.hook81_46051ad26e80 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D55180442C3 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:14 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: hook81_46051ad26e80 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6850 Received: from mail-ej1-f66.google.com (mail-ej1-f66.google.com [209.85.218.66]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f66.google.com with SMTP id ga4so24320326ejb.11 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:21:13 -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=/b+RUGrUg/ntsSCxKL5s82gEiDaQbG8Ituvi60lGYAk=; b=GaMFSQ/vIPPLHzsn4nGyPYqOGIrpRFxMECWcgZHHbOkkEXY94e6qp2UlJa+WLuwt/L 0ojqHNzUnSFEJ7sYgAMfYd5HIn/fwTE3eT9eba///13+ZSq4J9GNsaJaeoS6ykjNwQ2Z aIJuq0QdTBusIU9aerSOKsqCqP8/G6dQpBPasymS9zSC781mBJ2oI1j+RfMrk9cgrcuV 15WoXKM6h4ve4p85My6jaotFZDhDm5e9r2/jcP5FtG2ZeZHGUI4HVWZDVxS1wLzuWmEl yxKgu7Iw2oEp3pkeLRjsYwTWYc201el6pxmTlVH4kBH2h8fKqMq+U7JIKYQtzLOkObas NutQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331Sw7NrSt/FgGxXKRDh7Q6lx6NUpm0ge3lWDVYpWRsu7lLbp+c w8+1BVxxtZ2LlaHunJSN00A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwM754Glk3zEURKp6Dq0/LYW01GCSOKp40qjwm++RUI94oVQJQMVXVZpTlIQFzY4qbxuk1WUA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1a54:: with SMTP id j20mr22242582ejf.455.1593606072668; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-168-3.eurotel.cz. [37.188.168.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id di20sm6311781edb.26.2020.07.01.05.21.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:21:10 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Srikar Dronamraju , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Christopher Lameter , Michael Ellerman , Linus Torvalds , Gautham R Shenoy , Satheesh Rajendran Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Message-ID: <20200701122110.GT2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200624092846.9194-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200624092846.9194-4-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200701084200.GN2369@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200701100442.GB17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <184102af-ecf2-c834-db46-173ab2e66f51@redhat.com> <20200701110145.GC17918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <0468f965-8762-76a3-93de-3987cf859927@redhat.com> <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12945273-d788-710d-e8d7-974966529c7d@redhat.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 36D55180442C3 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 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 Wed 01-07-20 13:30:57, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 01.07.20 13:06, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 01.07.20 13:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > >> * David Hildenbrand [2020-07-01 12:15:54]: > >> > >>> On 01.07.20 12:04, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > >>>> * Michal Hocko [2020-07-01 10:42:00]: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The > >>>>>> number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the > >>>>>> device-tree and resource-dump > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. When the dummy node is present, single node non-Numa systems end up showing > >>>>>> up as NUMA systems and numa_balancing gets enabled. This will mean we take > >>>>>> the hit from the unnecessary numa hinting faults. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have to say that I dislike the node online/offline state and directly > >>>>> exporting that to the userspace. Users should only care whether the node > >>>>> has memory/cpus. Numa nodes can be online without any memory. Just > >>>>> offline all the present memory blocks but do not physically hot remove > >>>>> them and you are in the same situation. If users are confused by an > >>>>> output of tools like numactl -H then those could be updated and hide > >>>>> nodes without any memory&cpus. > >>>>> > >>>>> The autonuma problem sounds interesting but again this patch doesn't > >>>>> really solve the underlying problem because I strongly suspect that the > >>>>> problem is still there when a numa node gets all its memory offline as > >>>>> mentioned above. I would really appreciate a feedback to these two as well. > >>>>> While I completely agree that making node 0 special is wrong, I have > >>>>> still hard time to review this very simply looking patch because all the > >>>>> numa initialization is so spread around that this might just blow up > >>>>> at unexpected places. IIRC we have discussed testing in the previous > >>>>> version and David has provided a way to emulate these configurations > >>>>> on x86. Did you manage to use those instruction for additional testing > >>>>> on other than ppc architectures? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I have tried all the steps that David mentioned and reported back at > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200511174731.GD1961@linux.vnet.ibm.com/t/#u > >>>> > >>>> As a summary, David's steps are still not creating a memoryless/cpuless on > >>>> x86 VM. > >>> > >>> Now, that is wrong. You get a memoryless/cpuless node, which is *not > >>> online*. Once you hotplug some memory, it will switch online. Once you > >>> remove memory, it will switch back offline. > >>> > >> > >> Let me clarify, we are looking for a node 0 which is cpuless/memoryless at > >> boot. The code in question tries to handle a cpuless/memoryless node 0 at > >> boot. > > > > I was just correcting your statement, because it was wrong. > > > > Could be that x86 code maps PXM 1 to node 0 because PXM 1 does neither > > have CPUs nor memory. That would imply that we can, in fact, never have > > node 0 offline during boot. > > > > Yep, looks like it. > > [ 0.009726] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x00 -> Node 0 > [ 0.009727] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x01 -> Node 0 > [ 0.009727] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x02 -> Node 0 > [ 0.009728] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 0x03 -> Node 0 > [ 0.009731] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 1 [mem 0x00000000-0x0009ffff] > [ 0.009732] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 1 [mem 0x00100000-0xbfffffff] > [ 0.009733] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 1 [mem 0x100000000-0x13fffffff] This begs a question whether ppc can do the same thing? I would swear that we've had x86 system with node 0 but I cannot really find it and it is possible that it was not x86 after all... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs