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=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 9202DC433B4 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:50:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 C9E086120E for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:50:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C9E086120E 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 boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFr425tXmz3btt for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 02:50:26 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=PkkQQG5D; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=PkkQQG5D; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 4FFr3R1Jx5z2yym for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 02:49:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137GkQJH099492; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:49:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=DVglUePn2mo2HuidKepE6u1D9B1Xs08izaWtLpJecKQ=; b=PkkQQG5D+wbz0givGugJjvn2DqAWHXpmMPesN5zLVJxjfD+639uWMUmFBlNnLLyeWvlR TWmw3wyDDGnB0bDKA48xqJvymvU6Pj6dBU8gACupCvBX620NG+6oUtrXExeYkgCbBkvo xIrUIPyhA/g+9+Yh3KcC85mVDw9BnibL0LiVRLxaL7MEOJ1aHGkiZkrU/4mTQY6wkptq VWiMLG7xiMoWclxI1uliRwPGLNiKieVba98+HSsbn2nK9bGGMAGGZv36s3fqPhq9xAM1 PdI0qjCYhWf0wjRLChV21S21cqVTUF636U8YcI9x46l7nZXbP9Ti4/7SXoJ2eTqwtlmu 2g== Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37rvpjxt74-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:49:38 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 137GhVDl020064; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:36 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37rvc5gfjb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:49:35 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 137GnCc925035242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:12 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9345204E; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2581D5204F; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:31 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 22:19:30 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc/smp: Set numa node before updating mask Message-ID: <20210407164930.GJ2339179@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20210401154200.150077-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87czvdbova.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <20210402031815.GI2339179@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87eefml22p.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87eefml22p.fsf@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: NFScKcWjMeOERj0hSVTRwbHtnVsjxiSY X-Proofpoint-GUID: NFScKcWjMeOERj0hSVTRwbHtnVsjxiSY X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-07_09:2021-04-07, 2021-04-07 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104070112 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: Gautham R Shenoy , Peter Zijlstra , Scott Cheloha , Geetika Moolchandani , Valentin Schneider , Laurent Dufour , linuxppc-dev , Ingo Molnar Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Nathan Lynch [2021-04-07 07:19:10]: > Sorry for the delay in following up here. > No issues. > >> So I'd suggest that pseries_add_processor() be made to update > >> these things when the CPUs are marked present, before onlining them. > > > > In pseries_add_processor, we are only marking the cpu as present. i.e > > I believe numa_setup_cpu() would not have been called. So we may not have a > > way to associate the CPU to the node. Otherwise we will have to call > > numa_setup_cpu() or the hcall_vphn. > > > > We could try calling numa_setup_cpu() immediately after we set the > > CPU to be present, but that would be one more extra hcall + I dont know if > > there are any more steps needed before CPU being made present and > > associating the CPU to the node. > > An additional hcall in this path doesn't seem too expensive. > > > Are we sure the node is already online? > > I see that dlpar_online_cpu() calls find_and_online_cpu_nid(), so yes I > think that's covered. Okay, Can we just call set_cpu_numa_node() at the end of map_cpu_to_node(). The advantage would be the update to numa_cpu_lookup_table and cpu_to_node would happen at the same time and would be in sync. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju