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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3E4C433EF for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6B6BB8D0002; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:32:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 665F88D0001; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:32:27 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 52E6E8D0002; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:32:27 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.25]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AF08D0001 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:32:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12A72029E for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:32:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79166876292.04.29291D3 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A46D20006 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FC22112A; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:32:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1645450345; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CP7VUMzZ4gkdONg11YZaPFXMNI/oKfczzggdLkohEnU=; b=uFusi8Hu7UzMg+ROxYnvOzXWhN7S44WVxjAsURFq09+M+vGXYBr8D+xgZzuXRfxHqKn5/l lmwY2NBLmTXepbLAFS+amw9iFVDdaI4nDo0S127gwjwvsv0tk69NS9wFek0KbK+y1z5wBw Wo9/gKRrYQWu/7rjwQfAXZE9swPWur8= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034BDA3B85; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:32:21 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Oscar Salvador Cc: Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Rafael Aquini , Dave Hansen , Wei Yang , Dennis Zhou , Alexey Makhalov , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/mm/numa: Do not initialize nodes twice Message-ID: References: <20220218224302.5282-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20220218224302.5282-2-osalvador@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5A46D20006 X-Stat-Signature: hwccxynypcuhio11w9dip4egfaipshzp X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf31.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=uFusi8Hu; spf=pass (imf31.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-HE-Tag: 1645450346-854623 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 21-02-22 10:47:44, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:20:02AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 18-02-22 23:43:02, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > Why setting the node online saves us then? Well, simply because > > > __try_online_node() backs off when the node is online, meaning > > > we do not end up calling register_one_node() in the first place. > > > > This is really a mess and a house built on sand. Thanks for looking into > > it and hopefully this can get cleaned up to a saner state. > > Yes, I am willing to have a deep look into that and see how we can > improve the situation. > > > This sha1 is from linux-next very likely so it won't be persistent. > > Please drop it. > > Yes, it is. I guess it is fine to not have a "Fixes" tag here, so I will > remove it then. Normally we use sha in Fixes tag and I am not sure how many scripts we would confuse if there was no but I guess it is good enough to mention the patch name in the description. Theoretically we could have folded it to my patch but I think it would be better to have it separate because a) it gives a nice overview of the mess we should be dealing with and b) the original patch would likely be more convoluted than necessary. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs