Hello: Sorry for the out-of-date description. This entire patch has been removed / eliminated from subsequent patch sets. All changes to correct powerpc memoryless nodes will be confined to powerpc-specific code. Regards, Michael
On 10/19/2017 03:56 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael Bringmann <m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> pseries/findnodes: On pseries systems which allow 'hot-add' of > > This isn't a powerpc or pseries patch, so the subject/prefix is wrong. > > Also because you're changing generic code you need to provide an > explanation that makes sense in general, across all architectures, not > just in terms of what the pseries platform does. > >> resources, we may boot configurations that have CPUs, but no memory >> associated to a node by the affinity calculations. > > This is called a "memory-less node" and is understood by the generic > code. > >> Previously, the >> software took a shortcut to collapse initialization and references > > What software? What shortcut? > >> to such memoryless nodes with other nodes that did have memory >> associated with them at boot. This patch is based on fixes that > > What fixes? > >> allow the proper initialization and distinguishment of memoryless >> and memory-plus nodes after NUMA initialization. > > What exactly is unproper about the current code? > >> It extends the >> use of the 'node_to_mem_node()' API from 'topology.h' to modules > > The term "modules" has a specific meaning in Linux which is not correct > here. We would just say "in two functions" or "in two files". > >> that are allocating node-specific memory at boot, and allows such >> references to find available memory in another node. > > >> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c b/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c >> index 9f8cffc..a27a31f 100644 >> --- a/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c >> +++ b/block/blk-mq-cpumap.c >> @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ int blk_mq_hw_queue_to_node(unsigned int *mq_map, unsigned >> int index) >> >> for_each_possible_cpu(i) { >> if (index == mq_map[i]) >> - return local_memory_node(cpu_to_node(i)); >> + return local_memory_node( >> + node_to_mem_node(cpu_to_node(i))); > > What is this trying to do? > > local_memory_node() is supposed to return a "local" node for nodes with > no memory. > > And in fact the comment says: > > * Used for initializing percpu 'numa_mem' > > Which is what we do: > > set_numa_mem(local_memory_node(numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu])); > > And is what's returned by node_to_mem_node(): > > static inline void set_numa_mem(int node) > { > this_cpu_write(_numa_mem_, node); > _node_numa_mem_[numa_node_id()] = node; > } > > static inline int node_to_mem_node(int node) > { > return _node_numa_mem_[node]; > } > > So your change effectively ends up doing: > > return local_memory_node(local_memory_node(cpu_to_node(i))); > > Which doesn't look right. > > > cheers > > -- Michael W. Bringmann Linux Technology Center IBM Corporation Tie-Line 363-5196 External: (512) 286-5196 Cell: (512) 466-0650 m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com