From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] powerpc/numa: fix cpu_to_node() usage during boot
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:43:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150715224351.GH38815@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150715203516.GI15934@mtj.duckdns.org>
On 15.07.2015 [16:35:16 -0400], Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 04:02:02PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > we currently emit at boot:
> >
> > [ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: [0] 0 1 2 3 [0] 4 5 6 7
> >
> > After this commit, we correctly emit:
> >
> > [ 0.000000] pcpu-alloc: [0] 0 1 2 3 [1] 4 5 6 7
>
> JFYI, the numbers in the brackets aren't NUMA node numbers but percpu
> allocation group numbers and they're not split according to nodes but
> percpu allocation units. In both cases, there are two units each
> serving 0-3 and 4-7. In the above case, because it wasn't being fed
> the correct NUMA information, both got assigned to the same group. In
> the latter, they got assigned to different ones but even then if the
> group numbers match NUMA node numbers, that's just a coincidence.
Ok, thank you for clarifying! From a correctness perspective, even if
the numbers don't match NUMA nodes, should we expect the grouping to be
split along NUMA topology?
-Nish
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-15 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-02 23:02 [RFC PATCH 1/2] powerpc/numa: fix cpu_to_node() usage during boot Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-07-02 23:03 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] powerpc/smp: use early_cpu_to_node() instead of direct references to numa_cpu_lookup_table Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-07-09 1:25 ` David Rientjes
2015-07-08 4:00 ` [RFC,1/2] powerpc/numa: fix cpu_to_node() usage during boot Michael Ellerman
2015-07-08 23:16 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-07-09 1:24 ` David Rientjes
2015-07-10 16:15 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-07-15 20:37 ` Tejun Heo
2015-07-15 0:22 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-07-09 1:22 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] " David Rientjes
2015-07-10 16:25 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2015-07-14 21:31 ` David Rientjes
2015-07-15 20:35 ` Tejun Heo
2015-07-15 22:43 ` Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
2015-07-15 22:47 ` Tejun Heo
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=20150715224351.GH38815@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).