From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D65BC43381 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:49:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99EE920700 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:49:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 99EE920700 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44NCby0rJFzDqKP for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:49:18 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44NCZ91d6tzDq9n for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:47:41 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2IAkY8Z055681 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 06:47:39 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ra7vynmup-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 06:47:39 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:47:34 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:47:31 -0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x2IAlXs241418764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:47:33 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFDCA4067; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:47:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E348A405F; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:47:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:47:31 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:17:30 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC v3] sched/topology: fix kernel crash when a CPU is hotplugged in a memoryless node References: <20190304195952.16879-1-lvivier@redhat.com> <20190305115952.GH32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190305115952.GH32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19031810-0020-0000-0000-00000324A9D4 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19031810-0021-0000-0000-00002176BC02 Message-Id: <20190318104730.GA4450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-18_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903180082 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Laurent Vivier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Bringmann , Ingo Molnar , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Nathan Fontenot , Borislav Petkov , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, David Gibson Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" > > node 0 (because firmware doesn't provide the distance information for > > memoryless/cpuless nodes): > > > > node 0 1 2 3 > > 0: 10 40 10 10 > > 1: 40 10 40 40 > > 2: 10 40 10 10 > > 3: 10 40 10 10 > > *groan*... what does it do for things like percpu memory? ISTR the > per-cpu chunks are all allocated early too. Having them all use memory > out of node-0 would seem sub-optimal. In the specific failing case, there is only one node with memory; all other nodes are cpu only nodes. However in the generic case since its just a cpu hotplug ops, the memory allocated for per-cpu chunks allocated early would remain. May be Michael Ellerman can correct me here. > > > We should have: > > > > node 0 1 2 3 > > 0: 10 40 40 40 > > 1: 40 10 40 40 > > 2: 40 40 10 40 > > 3: 40 40 40 10 > > Can it happen that it introduces a new distance in the table? One that > hasn't been seen before? This example only has 10 and 40, but suppose > the new node lands at distance 20 (or 80); can such a thing happen? > > If not; why not? Yes distances can be 20, 40 or 80. There is nothing that makes the node distance to be 40 always. > So you're relying on sched_domain_numa_masks_set/clear() to fix this up, > but that in turn relies on the sched_domain_numa_levels thing to stay > accurate. > > This all seems very fragile and unfortunate. > Any reasons why this is fragile? -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju