Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

Michal Hocko
2019-09-24T10:56:32Z

On Tue 24-09-19 11:17:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:47:51AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 23-09-19 22:34:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 06:52:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I even the
> > > > ACPI standard is considering this optional. Yunsheng Lin has referred to
> > > > the specific part of the standard in one of the earlier discussions.
> > > > Trying to guess the node affinity is worse than providing all CPUs IMHO.
> > >
> > > I'm saying the ACPI standard is wrong.
> >
> > Even if you were right on this the reality is that a HW is likely to
> > follow that standard and we cannot rule out NUMA_NO_NODE being
> > specified. As of now we would access beyond the defined array and that
> > is clearly a bug.
>
> Right, because the device node is wrong, so we fix _that_!
>
> > Let's assume that this is really a bug for a moment. What are you going
> > to do about that? BUG_ON? I do not really see any solution besides to either
> > provide something sensible or BUG_ON. If you are worried about a
> > conditional then this should be pretty easy to solve by starting the
> > array at -1 index and associate it with the online cpu mask.
>
> The same thing I proposed earlier; force the device node to 0 (or any
> other convenient random valid value) and issue a FW_BUG message to the
> console.

Why would you "fix" anything and how do you know that node 0 is the
right choice? I have seen setups with node 0 without any memory and
similar unexpected things.

To be honest I really fail to see why to object to a simple semantic
that NUMA_NO_NODE imply all usable cpus. Could you explain that please?

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs