From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754170AbbCDFqY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 00:46:24 -0500
Received: from mgwkm02.jp.fujitsu.com ([202.219.69.169]:56113 "EHLO
	mgwkm02.jp.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751125AbbCDFqX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 00:46:23 -0500
X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v2.2.3
X-SHieldMailCheckerPolicyVersion: FJ-ISEC-20140219-2
Message-ID: <54F69C0B.6030502@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:45:47 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: update numa affinity when node hotplug
References: <1425031492-32300-1-git-send-email-guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150227115401.GD3964@htj.duckdns.org> <54F42221.6000904@jp.fujitsu.com> <20150302162854.GG17694@htj.duckdns.org> <54F55A7A.7060100@jp.fujitsu.com> <20150303131852.GA3122@htj.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150303131852.GA3122@htj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SecurityPolicyCheck-GC: OK by FENCE-Mail
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2015/03/03 22:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kame.
>
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:53:46PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> relationship between proximity domain and lapic id doesn't change.
>> relationship between lapic-id and cpu-id changes.
>>
>> pxm <-> memory address  : no change
>> pxm <-> lapicid         : no change
>> pxm <-> node id         : no change
>> lapicid <-> cpu id      : change.
>
> So, we're changing the cpu ID to NUMA node mapping because current
> NUMA code is ignoring PXM for memoryless nodes?  That's it?
>

For memory-less node case, yes.
Another problem is that lapicid <-> cpuid relationship is not persistent.


>>>> I personally thinks proper fix is building persistent cpu-id <-> lapicid relationship as
>>>> pxm does rather than creating band-aid.
>>>
>>> Oh if this is possible, I agree that's the right direction too.
>>>
>>
>> Implementation is a bit complicated now :(.
>
> Ah well, even then, the obviously right thing to do is updating NUMA
> code to always keep track of PXM information.  We don't really want to
> pile NUMA hacks in random users of NUMA code.
>

We'd like to start from making apicid <-> cpuid persistent because memory-less
node case doesn't cause panic.

Gu-san, how do you think ?

Thanks,
-Kame

P.S.
Finally, I want something like udev for cpuid/numaid...