From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2723E6B0253 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pawu10 with SMTP id u10so3550260paw.1 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 02:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heian.cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ah3si757269pad.55.2015.08.04.02.00.19 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 02:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55C07EC7.3040301@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 16:58:47 +0800 From: Tang Chen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, gfp: Cache best near node for memory allocation. References: <1436261425-29881-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>, <1436261425-29881-2-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>, <20150715214802.GL15934@mtj.duckdns.org>, <55C03332.2030808@cn.fujitsu.com> <201508041626380745999@inspur.com> In-Reply-To: <201508041626380745999@inspur.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080805040207090808020608" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "gongzhaogang@inspur.com" , "tj@kernel.org" Cc: "mingo@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "hpa@zytor.com" , tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, "yasu.isimatu@gmail.com" , "isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com" , "kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com" , "izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com" , "qiaonuohan@cn.fujitsu.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" --------------080805040207090808020608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/04/2015 04:26 PM, gongzhaogang@inspur.com wrote: > Sorry,I am new. > >But, > >1) in cpu_up(), it will try to online a node, and it doesn't check if > >the node has memory. > >2) in try_offline_node(), it offlines CPUs first, and then the memory. > >This behavior looks a little wired, or let's say it is ambiguous. It > >seems that a NUMA node > >consists of CPUs and memory. So if the CPUs are online, the node should > >be online. > I suggested you to try the patch offered by Liu Jiang. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/11/1087 > Well, I think Liu Jiang meant this patch set. :) https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/11/75 > I have tried ,It is OK. > > >Unfortunately, since I don't have a machine a with memory-less node, I > >cannot reproduce > >the problem right now. > > If not hurried , I can test your patches in our environment on weekends. > Thanks. But this version of my patch set is obviously problematic. It will be very nice of you if you can help to test the next version. But maybe in a few days. Thanks. :) --------------080805040207090808020608 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 08/04/2015 04:26 PM, gongzhaogang@inspur.com wrote:
Sorry,I am new.
>But,
>1) in cpu_up(), it will try to online a node, and it doesn't check if
>the node has memory.
>2) in try_offline_node(), it offlines CPUs first, and then the memory.
 
>This behavior looks a little wired, or let's say it is ambiguous. It
>seems that a NUMA node
>consists of CPUs and memory. So if the CPUs are online, the node should
>be online.
I suggested you to try the patch offered by Liu Jiang.



Well, I think Liu Jiang meant this patch set. :)

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/11/75

I have tried ,It is OK.

>Unfortunately, since I don't have a machine a with memory-less node, I
>cannot reproduce
>the problem right now.

If  not hurried  , I can test your patches in our environment on weekends.

Thanks. But this version of my patch set is obviously problematic.
It will be very nice of you if you can help to test the next version.
But maybe in a few days.

Thanks. :)
--------------080805040207090808020608-- -- 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