Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: Inconsistent use of node IDs

[Ethan Solomita <solo@google.com>]

    Ping!
    -- Ethan

Ethan Solomita wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>   
>> On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>>     
>>> This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
>>> "node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
>>>       
>> I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
>>     
>
> 	It's consistent to call node_online() with a physical node ID when the 
> online node mask is composed of fake nodes?
>
>   
>> Sorry, but when you ask for NUMA emulation you will get it. I don't see
>> any point in a "half way only for some subsystems I like" NUMA emulation. 
>> It's unlikely that your ideas of where it is useful and where is not
>> matches other NUMA emulation user's ideas too.
>>     
>
> 	I don't understand your comments. My code is intended to work for all 
> systems. If the system is non-NUMA by nature, then all CPUs map to fake 
> node 0.
>
> 	As an example, on a two chip dual-core AMD opteron system, there are 4 
> "cpus" where CPUs 0 and 1 are close to the first half of memory, and 
> CPUs 2 and 3 are close to the second half. Without this change CPUs 2 
> and 3 are mapped to fake node 1. This results in awful performance. With 
> this change, CPUs 2 and 3 are mapped to (roughly) 1/2 the fake node 
> count. Their zonelists[] are ordered to do allocations preferentially 
> from zones that are local to CPUs 2 and 3.
>
> 	Can you tell me the scenario where my code makes things worse?
>
>   
>> Besides adding such a secondary node space would be likely a huge long term 
>> mainteance issue. I just can it see breaking with every non trivial change.
>>     
>
> 	I'm adding no data structures to do this. The current code already has 
> get_phys_node. My changes use the existing information about node 
> layout, both the physical and fake, and defines a mapping. The current 
> mapping just takes a physical node and says "it's the fake node too".
>
>   
>> NACK.
>>     
>
> 	I wish you would include some specifics as to why you think what you 
> do. You're suggesting we leave in place a system that destroys NUMA 
> locality when using fake numa, and passes around physical node ids as an 
> index into nodes[] whihc is indexed by fake nodes. My change has no 
> effect without fake numa, and harms no one with fake numa.
> 	-- Ethan
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>