Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm: handle uninitialized numa nodes gracefully

David Hildenbrand
2022-02-03T09:11:27Z

On 03.02.22 10:08, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:27:16AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 03.02.22 08:23, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:21:16AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:54:37AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue 01-02-22 02:41:19, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 03:47:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>>>> + * not marking this node online because we do not want to
>>>>>>>>> + * confuse userspace by sysfs files/directories for node
>>>>>>>>> + * without any memory attached to it (see topology_init)
>>>>>>>>> + * The pgdat will get fully initialized when a memory is
>>>>>>>>> + * hotpluged into it by hotadd_init_pgdat
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm... which following step would mark the node online? On x86, the node is
>>>>>> onlined in alloc_node_date(). This is not onlined here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The comment tries to explain that this happens during the memory
>>>>> hotplug. Or maybe I have missed your question?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure for others, while the comment confused me a little.
>>>>
>>>> Currently in kernel, there are two situations for node online:
>>>>
>>>> * during memory hotplug
>>>> * during sys-init
>>>>
>>>> For memory hotplug, we allocate pgdat and online node. And current hot-add
>>>> process has already put them in two steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1. __try_online_node()
>>>> 2. node_set_online()
>>>>
>>>> So emphasize "not online" node here, confuse me a little. It is a natural
>>>> thing to not online node until it has memory.
>>>>
>>>> But from another point of view, the comment here is reasonable. During
>>>> sys-init, we online node at the same time when creating pgdat. And even for
>>>> memory-less node on x86, we online them too.
>>>>
>>>> Well, this is all about the comment. I have tried to grab may head but not
>>>> come up with a better idea.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe this is just my personal feeling, don't bother if no-one else feel
>>>> like this.
>>>
>>> I shuffled the words a bit, maybe this sounds better not only to me :)
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * We do not want to confuse userspace by sysfs files/directories for node
>>> * without any memory attached to it, so this node is not marked as
>>> * N_MEMORY and not marked online so that topology_init() won't create
>>> * sysfs hierarchy for this node. The pgdat will get fully initialized by
>>> * hotadd_init_pgdat() when memory is hotpluged into this node
>>> */
>>>
>>
>> Note that the topology_init() part might change soon [1] so maybe we
>> want to rephrase that to "so that no sysfs hierarchy will be created via
>> register_one_node() for this node." right away.
>
> Heh, this will be your responsibility to update the comment here when you
> post non-RFC version ;-)

I'm usually sending patches against Linus' tree. And I'll post non-RFC
most probably today (after testing on aarch64) ;)

So I'd appreciate if we could just phrase it more generically, as I
tried. But of course, we can try making my life harder ;)

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb