Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA

Baoquan He
2020-03-30T10:44:11Z

On 03/30/20 at 01:26pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:58:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 30-03-20 12:21:27, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 09:42:46AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Sat 28-03-20 11:31:17, Hoan Tran wrote:
> > > > > In NUMA layout which nodes have memory ranges that span across other nodes,
> > > > > the mm driver can detect the memory node id incorrectly.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, with layout below
> > > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx 0000 xxxx
> > > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 xxxx 1111
> > > > >
> > > > > Note:
> > > > > - Memory from low to high
> > > > > - 0/1: Node id
> > > > > - x: Invalid memory of a node
> > > > >
> > > > > When mm probes the memory map, without CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> > > > > config, mm only checks the memory validity but not the node id.
> > > > > Because of that, Node 1 also detects the memory from node 0 as below
> > > > > when it scans from the start address to the end address of node 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Node 0 address: 0000 xxxx xxxx xxxx
> > > > > Node 1 address: xxxx 1111 1111 1111
> > > > >
> > > > > This layout could occur on any architecture. Most of them enables
> > > > > this config by default with CONFIG_NUMA. This patch, by default, enables
> > > > > CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES or uses early_pfn_in_nid() for NUMA.
> > > >
> > > > I am not opposed to this at all. It reduces the config space and that is
> > > > a good thing on its own. The history has shown that meory layout might
> > > > be really wild wrt NUMA. The config is only used for early_pfn_in_nid
> > > > which is clearly an overkill.
> > > >
> > > > Your description doesn't really explain why this is safe though. The
> > > > history of this config is somehow messy, though. Mike has tried
> > > > to remove it a94b3ab7eab4 ("[PATCH] mm: remove arch independent
> > > > NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES") just to be reintroduced by 7516795739bd
> > > > ("[PATCH] Reintroduce NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES for powerpc") without any
> > > > reasoning what so ever. This doesn't make it really easy see whether
> > > > reasons for reintroduction are still there. Maybe there are some subtle
> > > > dependencies. I do not see any TBH but that might be burried deep in an
> > > > arch specific code.
> > >
> > > Well, back then early_pfn_in_nid() was arch-dependant, today everyone
> > > except ia64 rely on HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP.
> >
> > What would it take to make ia64 use HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP? I would
> > really love to see that thing go away. It is causing problems when
> > people try to use memblock api.
>
> Sorry, my bad, ia64 does not have NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES, but it does have
> HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP.
>
> I remember I've tried killing HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP, but I've run into
> some problems and then I've got distracted. I too would like to have
> HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP go away, maybe I'll take another look at it.
>
> > > So, if the memblock node map
> > > is correct, that using CONFIG_NUMA instead of CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES
> > > would only mean that early_pfn_in_nid() will cost several cycles more on
> > > architectures that didn't select CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES (i.e. arm64
> > > and sh).
> >
> > Do we have any idea on how much of an overhead that is? Because this is
> > per each pfn so it can accumulate a lot!
>
> It's O(log(N)) where N is the amount of the memory banks (ie. memblock.memory.cnt)

This is for the Node id searching. But early_pfn_in_nid() is calling for
each pfn, this is the big one, I think. Otherwise, it may be optimized
as no-op.

>
> > > Agian, ia64 is an exception here.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification!
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
>
>