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=-3.5 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 230EAC433ED for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:24:24 +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 0C5BC61242 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:24:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0C5BC61242 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.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 4FKPtF2yyGz3bwC for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:24:21 +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=JoNThV9s; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.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=JoNThV9s; dkim-atps=neutral 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 4FKPsk4Yl4z2xfn for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:23:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13DC3dZv081568; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:23:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=2yMEjPZSqLkXO24ydJuaWfvjycFYgWdt1+r4Vl0TFBo=; b=JoNThV9szNW3Jsbd3IqMBVfVP9+kGfDCdSF7C8hIXcOE6+T9uoC+xr2vOl6VMXKqQkq2 jSQ8KityR+usxhfJk8jc7K7CD7mX0STuANQq6xi032iiKLXHWPxnlKzvymGCRyxRHnR5 IR307EZTIhDYJY7zrlizwYDWRkiWPm3BZo8xHMOYObmVVQy1WoTyWRTKc8KuMaXZUgWK ZwH4ecOilcuzDXoL+86HAE5iJqWXaOIu4TOKm2tsqsZgM17kfnRlZuMxds645byKeco+ bL+H0aBL/y253qfnapC8LuVRMiAdr0YwHYxiwtcTz6qTWk+r8cpCCT5/HLnvR6re1Tpj vg== Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37vkd68xjc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:23:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13DCJUwq002405; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:23:31 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.28]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37u3n9rfu8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:23:31 +0000 Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.106]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13DCNVQV31195500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:23:31 GMT Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C2B28058; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:23:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFD22805C; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:23:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.163.8.142]) by b01ledav001.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:23:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc/smp: Set numa node before updating mask In-Reply-To: <20210409101409.GA2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20210401154200.150077-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87czvdbova.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <20210409101409.GA2633526@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:23:30 -0500 Message-ID: <87mtu2fk59.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: a0hjbba_iSSak-djYgeto7jae4gjdEHn X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: a0hjbba_iSSak-djYgeto7jae4gjdEHn X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-13_04:2021-04-13, 2021-04-13 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104130086 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: , 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" Srikar Dronamraju writes: > That leaves us with just 2 options for now. > 1. Update numa_mem later and only update numa_node here. > - Over a longer period of time, this would be more confusing since we > may lose track of why we are splitting the set of numa_node and numa_mem. > > or > 2. Use my earlier patch. > > My choice would be to go with my earlier patch. > Please do let me know your thoughts on the same. OK, agreed. Thanks.