From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:21:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150305232135.GE30570@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150305220804.GF23912@htj.duckdns.org>
On 05.03.2015 [17:08:04 -0500], Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:58:27PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > I'm not sure why this is being proposed as a powerpc patch and now a patch
> > for mem_cgroup_css_alloc(). In other words, why do we have to allocate
> > for all possible nodes? We should only be allocating for online nodes in
> > N_MEMORY with mem hotplug disabled initially and then have a mem hotplug
> > callback implemented to alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info() for nodes that
> > transition from memoryless -> memory. The extra bonus is that
> > alloc_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info() need never allocate remote memory and the
> > TODO in that function can be removed.
>
> For cpus, the general direction is allocating for all possible cpus.
> For iterations, we alternate between using all possibles and onlines
> depending on the use case; however, the general idea is that the
> possibles and onlines aren't gonna be very different. NR_CPUS and
> MAX_NUMNODES gotta accomodate the worst possible case the kernel may
> run on but the possible masks should be set to the actually possible
> subset during boot so that the kernel don't end up allocating for and
> iterating over things which can't ever exist.
Makes sense to me.
> It can be argued that we should always stick to the online masks for
> allocation and iteration; however, that usually requires more
> complexity and the only cases where this mattered have been when the
> boot code got it wrong and failed to set the possible masks correctly,
> which also seems to be the case here. I don't see any reason to
> deviate here.
So, do you agree with the general direction of my change? :)
Thanks,
Nish
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-05 23:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-05 18:05 [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-03-05 21:16 ` David Rientjes
2015-03-05 21:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-03-05 21:58 ` David Rientjes
2015-03-05 22:08 ` Tejun Heo
2015-03-05 22:18 ` Tejun Heo
2015-03-05 23:21 ` Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
2015-03-05 23:24 ` Tejun Heo
2015-03-05 23:20 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-03-05 23:17 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-03-05 23:15 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-03-05 23:29 ` David Rientjes
2015-03-06 5:27 ` [PATCH v2] powerpc/numa: set node_possible_map to only node_online_map during boot Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-03-06 11:29 ` Raghavendra K T
2015-03-09 23:55 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-03-10 23:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-03-05 22:13 ` [RFC PATCH] powerpc/numa: reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map Tejun Heo
2015-03-05 23:27 ` 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=20150305232135.GE30570@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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.