Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] powerpc/numa: Prefer node id queried from vphn

Gautham R Shenoy
2020-04-29T06:52:58Z

Hello Srikar,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:08:35PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Node id queried from the static device tree may not
> be correct. For example: it may always show 0 on a shared processor.
> Hence prefer the node id queried from vphn and fallback on the device tree
> based node id if vphn query fails.
>
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
> Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> Changelog v1:->v2:
> - Rebased to v5.7-rc3
>
> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index b3615b7fdbdf..281531340230 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -719,20 +719,20 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void)
> */
> for_each_present_cpu(i) {
> struct device_node *cpu;
> - int nid;
> -
> - cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> - BUG_ON(!cpu);
> - nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> - of_node_put(cpu);
> + int nid = vphn_get_nid(i);
>
> /*
> * Don't fall back to default_nid yet -- we will plug
> * cpus into nodes once the memory scan has discovered
> * the topology.
> */
> - if (nid < 0)
> - continue;

> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> + cpu = of_get_cpu_node(i, NULL);
> + if (cpu) {

Why are we not retaining the BUG_ON(!cpu) assert here ?

> + nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);
> + of_node_put(cpu);
> + }
> + }

Is it possible at this point that both vphn_get_nid(i) and
of_node_to_nid_single(cpu) returns NUMA_NO_NODE ? If so,
should we still call node_set_online() below ?

> node_set_online(nid);
> }
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.