From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:04:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200430043445.GE19958@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200429065229.GA18304@in.ibm.com>
* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2020-04-29 12:22:29]:
> Hello Srikar,
>
>
> > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > + cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> > + if (cpu) {
>
> Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?
>
> > + nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> > + of_node_put(cpu);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
> of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
> should we still call node_set_online() below ?
Yeah, I think It makes sense to retain the BUG_ON and if check.
Will incorporate both of them in the next version.
>
>
> > node_set_online(nid);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:04:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200430043445.GE19958@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200429065229.GA18304@in.ibm.com>
* Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2020-04-29 12:22:29]:
> Hello Srikar,
>
>
> > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > + cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> > + if (cpu) {
>
> Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?
>
> > + nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> > + of_node_put(cpu);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
> of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
> should we still call node_set_online() below ?
Yeah, I think It makes sense to retain the BUG_ON and if check.
Will incorporate both of them in the next version.
>
>
> > node_set_online(nid);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-30 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-28 9:38 [PATCH v2 0/3] Offline memoryless cpuless node 0 Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] powerpc/numa: Set numa_node for all possible cpus Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-29 6:52 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-04-29 6:52 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2020-04-30 4:34 ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2020-04-30 4:34 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Keep memoryless cpuless node 0 offline Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 9:38 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-28 23:59 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-28 23:59 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-29 1:41 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-29 1:41 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-29 12:22 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-29 12:22 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-30 7:18 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-04-30 7:18 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-05-04 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-08 13:03 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-05-08 13:03 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-05-08 13:39 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-05-08 13:39 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-05-08 13:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-05-08 13:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-05-11 17:47 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-05-11 17:47 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-05-12 7:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-05-12 7:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-05-12 10:42 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2020-05-12 10:42 ` Srikar Dronamraju
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=20200430043445.GE19958@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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.