From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09BA8E0001 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 02:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id w15so4926915edl.21 for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:57:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id b9sor5502697eda.20.2018.12.09.23.57.15 for (Google Transport Security); Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:57:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181206121152.GH1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181207075322.GS1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181207113044.GB1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181207142240.GC1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181207155627.GG1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: From: Pingfan Liu Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:57:02 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/alloc: fallback to first node if the wanted node offline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: mhocko@kernel.org Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , Bjorn Helgaas , Jonathan Cameron On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:00 PM Pingfan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:56 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Fri 07-12-18 22:27:13, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > [...] > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > index 1308f54..4dc497d 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > @@ -754,18 +754,23 @@ void __init init_cpu_to_node(void) > > > { > > > int cpu; > > > u16 *cpu_to_apicid = early_per_cpu_ptr(x86_cpu_to_apicid); > > > + int node, nr; > > > > > > BUG_ON(cpu_to_apicid == NULL); > > > + nr = cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask); > > > + > > > + /* bring up all possible node, since dev->numa_node */ > > > + //should check acpi works for node possible, > > > + for_each_node(node) > > > + if (!node_online(node)) > > > + init_memory_less_node(node); > > > > I suspect there is no change if you replace for_each_node by > > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) > > > > here. If that is the case then we are probably calling > > free_area_init_node too early. I do not see it yet though. > > Maybe I do not clearly get your meaning, just try to guess. But if you > worry about node_possible_map, then it is dynamically set by > alloc_node_data(). The map is changed after the first time to call A mistake, it should be node_online_map. and in free_area_init_nodes() for_each_online_node(nid) { free_area_init_node(nid, NULL,.. So at this time, we do not need to worry about the memory-less node. > free_area_init_node() for the node with memory. This logic is the > same as the current x86 code. > > Thanks, > Pingfan