From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
anton@samba.org
Subject: Re: Node 0 not necessary for powerpc?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:48:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140313164849.GB22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403111900100.19193@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 11.03.2014 [19:02:17 -0700], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > I have a P7 system that has no node0, but a node0 shows up in numactl
> > --hardware, which has no cpus and no memory (and no PCI devices):
> >
> > numactl --hardware
> > available: 4 nodes (0-3)
> > node 0 cpus:
> > node 0 size: 0 MB
> > node 0 free: 0 MB
> > node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
> > node 1 size: 0 MB
> > node 1 free: 0 MB
> > node 2 cpus:
> > node 2 size: 7935 MB
> > node 2 free: 7716 MB
> > node 3 cpus:
> > node 3 size: 8395 MB
> > node 3 free: 8015 MB
> > node distances:
> > node 0 1 2 3
> > 0: 10 20 10 20
> > 1: 20 10 20 20
> > 2: 10 20 10 20
> > 3: 20 20 20 10
> >
> > This is because we statically initialize N_ONLINE to be [0] in
> > mm/page_alloc.c:
> >
> > [N_ONLINE] = { { [0] = 1UL } },
> >
> > I'm not sure what the architectural requirements are here, but at least
> > on this test system, removing this initialization, it boots fine and is
> > running. I've not yet tried stress tests, but it's survived the
> > beginnings of kernbench so far.
> >
> > numactl --hardware
> > available: 3 nodes (1-3)
> > node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
> > node 1 size: 0 MB
> > node 1 free: 0 MB
> > node 2 cpus:
> > node 2 size: 7935 MB
> > node 2 free: 7479 MB
> > node 3 cpus:
> > node 3 size: 8396 MB
> > node 3 free: 8375 MB
> > node distances:
> > node 1 2 3
> > 1: 10 20 20
> > 2: 20 10 20
> > 3: 20 20 10
> >
> > Perhaps we could put in a ARCH_DOES_NOT_NEED_NODE0 and only define it on
> > powerpc for now, conditionalizing the above initialization on that?
> >
>
> I don't know if anything has recently changed in the past year or so, but
> I've booted x86 machines with a hacked BIOS so that all memory on node 0
> is hotpluggable and offline, so I believe this is possible on x86 as well.
Good to know, thanks! This is also certainly not very common on powerpc,
but it is possible -- and the topology ends up being inaccurate because
of the static initialization.
Thanks,
Nish
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
anton@samba.org, cl@linux.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: Node 0 not necessary for powerpc?
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:48:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140313164849.GB22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403111900100.19193@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 11.03.2014 [19:02:17 -0700], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > I have a P7 system that has no node0, but a node0 shows up in numactl
> > --hardware, which has no cpus and no memory (and no PCI devices):
> >
> > numactl --hardware
> > available: 4 nodes (0-3)
> > node 0 cpus:
> > node 0 size: 0 MB
> > node 0 free: 0 MB
> > node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
> > node 1 size: 0 MB
> > node 1 free: 0 MB
> > node 2 cpus:
> > node 2 size: 7935 MB
> > node 2 free: 7716 MB
> > node 3 cpus:
> > node 3 size: 8395 MB
> > node 3 free: 8015 MB
> > node distances:
> > node 0 1 2 3
> > 0: 10 20 10 20
> > 1: 20 10 20 20
> > 2: 10 20 10 20
> > 3: 20 20 20 10
> >
> > This is because we statically initialize N_ONLINE to be [0] in
> > mm/page_alloc.c:
> >
> > [N_ONLINE] = { { [0] = 1UL } },
> >
> > I'm not sure what the architectural requirements are here, but at least
> > on this test system, removing this initialization, it boots fine and is
> > running. I've not yet tried stress tests, but it's survived the
> > beginnings of kernbench so far.
> >
> > numactl --hardware
> > available: 3 nodes (1-3)
> > node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
> > node 1 size: 0 MB
> > node 1 free: 0 MB
> > node 2 cpus:
> > node 2 size: 7935 MB
> > node 2 free: 7479 MB
> > node 3 cpus:
> > node 3 size: 8396 MB
> > node 3 free: 8375 MB
> > node distances:
> > node 1 2 3
> > 1: 10 20 20
> > 2: 20 10 20
> > 3: 20 20 10
> >
> > Perhaps we could put in a ARCH_DOES_NOT_NEED_NODE0 and only define it on
> > powerpc for now, conditionalizing the above initialization on that?
> >
>
> I don't know if anything has recently changed in the past year or so, but
> I've booted x86 machines with a hacked BIOS so that all memory on node 0
> is hotpluggable and offline, so I believe this is possible on x86 as well.
Good to know, thanks! This is also certainly not very common on powerpc,
but it is possible -- and the topology ends up being inaccurate because
of the static initialization.
Thanks,
Nish
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-13 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-11 19:56 Node 0 not necessary for powerpc? Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-11 19:56 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-12 2:02 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-12 2:02 ` David Rientjes
2014-03-13 16:48 ` Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
2014-03-13 16:48 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-12 13:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-03-12 13:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-03-13 16:49 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-03-13 16:49 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-19 18:24 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-19 18:24 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-21 14:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-05-21 14:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-05-21 18:58 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-21 18:58 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-21 19:57 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-05-21 19:57 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-09 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2014-06-09 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2014-06-10 23:31 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-10 23:31 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 14:59 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-19 14:59 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-19 17:40 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 17:40 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 17:14 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-06-19 17:14 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140313164849.GB22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.