From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f69.google.com (mail-oi0-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4A26B0008 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f69.google.com with SMTP id l20-v6so12429151oii.1 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i22-v6si678197ote.96.2018.06.26.10.27.04 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:27:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: avoid alloc memory on offline node References: <20180619120714.GE13685@dhcp22.suse.cz> <874lhz3pmn.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20180619140818.GA16927@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <87wouu3jz1.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20180619151425.GH13685@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87r2l23i2b.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20180619163256.GA18952@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> <814205eb-ae86-a519-bed0-f09b8e2d3a02@huawei.com> <87602d3ccl.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5c083c9c-473f-f504-848b-48506d0fd380@huawei.com> <20180622091153.GU10465@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87y3f7yv89.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20180622184223.00007bc3@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:27:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20180622184223.00007bc3@huawei.com> (Jonathan Cameron's message of "Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:42:23 +0100") Message-ID: <87muvhwja2.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Michal Hocko , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Catalin Marinas , tnowicki@caviumnetworks.com, Xie XiuQi , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm , Hanjun Guo , Bjorn Helgaas , Andrew Morton , zhongjiang , wanghuiqiang@huawei.com Jonathan Cameron writes: [...] > > I'll test it when back in the office, but I had a similar issue with > memory only nodes when I moved the SRAT listing for cpus from the 4 > 4th mode to the 3rd node to fake some memory I could hot unplug. > This gave a memory only node for the last node on the system. > > When I instead moved cpus from the 3rd node to the 4th (so the node > with only memory was now in the middle, everything worked). > > Was odd, and I'd been meaning to chase it down but hadn't gotten to it > yet. If I get time I'll put together some test firmwares as see if there > are any other nasty corner cases we aren't handling. If you get a chance, it'd be really helpful to test reversing the ordering of entries in the SRAT and booting with a restricted NR_CPUS. This issue was found through code inspection. Please make sure to use the updated patch from Lorenzo for your tests[0]. [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=152998665713983&w=2 > > Jonathan > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel