Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1648184 > unrolled thread

[Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-23 17:20 +0200
    Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-23 18:00 +0200
      Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-23 22:10 +0200
        Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-23 23:50 +0200
          Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-24 00:50 +0200
          Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-24 00:50 +0200
            Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-05-24 13:30 +0200
              Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-25 02:00 +0200
                Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-05-25 08:30 +0200
                  Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-25 15:50 +0200
                  Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-25 17:20 +0200
                    Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-25 17:30 +0200
                    Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 05:50 +0200
                    Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-05-26 05:50 +0200
                      Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-26 14:40 +0200
                      Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-26 16:40 +0200
                        Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-05-29 07:40 +0200
                          Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-31 16:10 +0200
                            Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-06-01 11:40 +0200
                              Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-06-01 23:40 +0200
                                Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 10:10 +0200
                                Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-06-07 14:10 +0200
                              Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-06-06 11:50 +0200
                                Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-06-06 18:20 +0200
                                  Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-06-07 14:10 +0200
            Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-24 16:40 +0200
              Re: [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-05-25 01:50 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1648184 — [Patch 2/2]: powerpc/hotplug/mm: Fix hot-add memory node assoc

Removing or adding memory via the PowerPC hotplug interface shows
anomalies in the association between memory and nodes.  The code
was updated to initialize more possible nodes to make them available
to subsequent DLPAR hotplug-memory operations, even if they are not
needed at boot time.

Signed-off-by: Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c |   44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index 15c2dd5..3d58c1f 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
@@ -870,7 +870,7 @@ void __init dump_numa_cpu_topology(void)
 }
 
 /* Initialize NODE_DATA for a node on the local memory */
-static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
+static void setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 {
 	u64 spanned_pages = end_pfn - start_pfn;
 	const size_t nd_size = roundup(sizeof(pg_data_t), SMP_CACHE_BYTES);
@@ -878,23 +878,41 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	void *nd;
 	int tnid;
 
-	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
-	nd = __va(nd_pa);
+	if (!node_data[nid]) {
+		nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+		nd = __va(nd_pa);
 
-	/* report and initialize */
-	pr_info("  NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-		nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
-	tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
-	if (tnid != nid)
-		pr_info("    NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+		node_data[nid] = nd;
+		memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
+		NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id = nid;
+
+		/* report and initialize */
+		pr_info("  NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+			nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
+		tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
+		if (tnid != nid)
+			pr_info("    NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+	} else {
+		nd_pa = (u64) node_data[nid];
+		nd = __va(nd_pa);
+	}
 
-	node_data[nid] = nd;
-	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
-	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id = nid;
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn = start_pfn;
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages = spanned_pages;
 }
 
+static void setup_nodes(void)
+{
+	int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
+		if (!node_possible(i)) {
+			setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
+			node_set(i, node_possible_map);
+		}
+	}
+}
+
 void __init initmem_init(void)
 {
 	int nid, cpu;
@@ -914,6 +932,8 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
 	 */
 	nodes_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);
 
+	setup_nodes();
+
 	for_each_online_node(nid) {
 		unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648223

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>+static void setup_nodes(void)
>+{
>+	int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>+
>+	for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>+		if (!node_possible(i)) {
>+			setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>+			node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>+		}
>+	}
>+}

This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset 
node_possible_map to only node_online_map").

Balbir, you have a patchset which reverts it. Do you think that will be 
getting merged?

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479253501-26261-1-git-send-email-bsingharora@gmail.com
(see patch 3/3)

-- 
Reza Arbab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648387

On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>> +{
>> +    int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>> +        if (!node_possible(i)) {
>> +            setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>> +            node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +}
> 
> This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map").

They may be related, but that commit is not a replacement.  The above patch ensures that
there are enough of the nodes initialized at startup to allow for memory hot-add into a
node that was not used at boot.  (See 'setup_node_data' function in 'numa.c'.)  That and
recording that the node was initialized.

I didn't see where any part of commit 3af229f2071f would touch the 'node_possible_map'
which is needed by 'numa.c' and 'workqueue.c'.  The nodemask created and updated by
'mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask()' does not appear to be the same mask.

> 
> Balbir, you have a patchset which reverts it. Do you think that will be getting merged?
> 
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479253501-26261-1-git-send-email-bsingharora@gmail.com
> (see patch 3/3)
> 

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648847

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>>> +
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>>> +        if (!node_possible(i)) {
>>> +            setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>>> +            node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>
>> This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map").
>
>They may be related, but that commit is not a replacement.  The above patch ensures that
>there are enough of the nodes initialized at startup to allow for memory hot-add into a
>node that was not used at boot.  (See 'setup_node_data' function in 'numa.c'.)  That and
>recording that the node was initialized.

Is it really necessary to preinitialize these empty nodes using 
setup_node_data()? When you do memory hotadd into a node that was not 
used at boot, the node data already gets set up by

add_memory
  add_memory_resource
    hotadd_new_pgdat
      arch_alloc_nodedata <-- allocs the pg_data_t
      ...
      free_area_init_node <-- sets NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id, etc.

Removing setup_node_data() from that loop leaves only the call to 
node_set(). If 3af229f2071f (which reduces node_possible_map) was 
reverted, you wouldn't need to do that either.

>I didn't see where any part of commit 3af229f2071f would touch the 'node_possible_map'
>which is needed by 'numa.c' and 'workqueue.c'.  The nodemask created and updated by
>'mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask()' does not appear to be the same mask.

Are you sure you're looking at 3af229f2071f? It only adds one line of 
code; the reduction of node_possible_map.

-- 
Reza Arbab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648988

On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>>>> +        if (!node_possible(i)) {
>>>> +            setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>>>> +            node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>>>> +        }
>>>> +    }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map").
>>
>> They may be related, but that commit is not a replacement.  The above patch ensures that
>> there are enough of the nodes initialized at startup to allow for memory hot-add into a
>> node that was not used at boot.  (See 'setup_node_data' function in 'numa.c'.)  That and
>> recording that the node was initialized.
> 
> Is it really necessary to preinitialize these empty nodes using setup_node_data()? When you do memory hotadd into a node that was not used at boot, the node data already gets set up by
> 
> add_memory
>  add_memory_resource
>    hotadd_new_pgdat
>      arch_alloc_nodedata <-- allocs the pg_data_t
>      ...
>      free_area_init_node <-- sets NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id, etc.

I see that code now, but for some reason it did not work when I hot-added
memory.

> 
> Removing setup_node_data() from that loop leaves only the call to node_set(). If 3af229f2071f (which reduces node_possible_map) was reverted, you wouldn't need to do that either.
> 
>> I didn't see where any part of commit 3af229f2071f would touch the 'node_possible_map'
>> which is needed by 'numa.c' and 'workqueue.c'.  The nodemask created and updated by
>> 'mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask()' does not appear to be the same mask.
> 
> Are you sure you're looking at 3af229f2071f? It only adds one line of code; the reduction of node_possible_map.
> 

The 3rd file in the patch set removes,

-	nodes_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);

I need to add bits to 'node_possible_map' -- bits which may not be used
for the memory at boot, but which would be used when memory is hot-added
later.  I haven't found anything outside of the boot code that adds bits
to the 'possible' mask.

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1648992

On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>>>> +        if (!node_possible(i)) {
>>>> +            setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>>>> +            node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>>>> +        }
>>>> +    }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map").
>>
>> They may be related, but that commit is not a replacement.  The above patch ensures that
>> there are enough of the nodes initialized at startup to allow for memory hot-add into a
>> node that was not used at boot.  (See 'setup_node_data' function in 'numa.c'.)  That and
>> recording that the node was initialized.
> 
> Is it really necessary to preinitialize these empty nodes using setup_node_data()? When you do memory hotadd into a node that was not used at boot, the node data already gets set up by
> 
> add_memory
>  add_memory_resource
>    hotadd_new_pgdat
>      arch_alloc_nodedata <-- allocs the pg_data_t
>      ...
>      free_area_init_node <-- sets NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id, etc.
> 
> Removing setup_node_data() from that loop leaves only the call to node_set(). If 3af229f2071f (which reduces node_possible_map) was reverted, you wouldn't need to do that either.

With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something, somewhere to add new
bits to the 'node_possible_map'.  That is not being done.

> 
>> I didn't see where any part of commit 3af229f2071f would touch the 'node_possible_map'
>> which is needed by 'numa.c' and 'workqueue.c'.  The nodemask created and updated by
>> 'mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask()' does not appear to be the same mask.
> 
> Are you sure you're looking at 3af229f2071f? It only adds one line of code; the reduction of node_possible_map.
> 

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1649487

Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>>>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>>>>> +        if (!node_possible(i)) {
>>>>> +            setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>>>>> +            node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map").
>>>
>>> They may be related, but that commit is not a replacement.  The above patch ensures that
>>> there are enough of the nodes initialized at startup to allow for memory hot-add into a
>>> node that was not used at boot.  (See 'setup_node_data' function in 'numa.c'.)  That and
>>> recording that the node was initialized.
>> 
>> Is it really necessary to preinitialize these empty nodes using setup_node_data()? When you do memory hotadd into a node that was not used at boot, the node data already gets set up by
>> 
>> add_memory
>>  add_memory_resource
>>    hotadd_new_pgdat
>>      arch_alloc_nodedata <-- allocs the pg_data_t
>>      ...
>>      free_area_init_node <-- sets NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id, etc.
>> 
>> Removing setup_node_data() from that loop leaves only the call to node_set(). If 3af229f2071f (which reduces node_possible_map) was reverted, you wouldn't need to do that either.
>
> With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something, somewhere to add new
> bits to the 'node_possible_map'.  That is not being done.

You mustn't add bits to the possible map after boot.

That's its purpose, to tell you what nodes could ever *possibly* exist.

cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650025

On 05/24/2017 06:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> On 05/23/2017 04:49 PM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>>> On 05/23/2017 10:52 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
>>>>>> +static void setup_nodes(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    int i, l = 32 /* MAX_NUMNODES */;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
>>>>>> +        if (!node_possible(i)) {
>>>>>> +            setup_node_data(i, 0, 0);
>>>>>> +            node_set(i, node_possible_map);
>>>>>> +        }
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be a workaround for 3af229f2071f ("powerpc/numa: Reset node_possible_map to only node_online_map").
>>>>
>>>> They may be related, but that commit is not a replacement.  The above patch ensures that
>>>> there are enough of the nodes initialized at startup to allow for memory hot-add into a
>>>> node that was not used at boot.  (See 'setup_node_data' function in 'numa.c'.)  That and
>>>> recording that the node was initialized.
>>>
>>> Is it really necessary to preinitialize these empty nodes using setup_node_data()? When you do memory hotadd into a node that was not used at boot, the node data already gets set up by
>>>
>>> add_memory
>>>  add_memory_resource
>>>    hotadd_new_pgdat
>>>      arch_alloc_nodedata <-- allocs the pg_data_t
>>>      ...
>>>      free_area_init_node <-- sets NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id, etc.
>>>
>>> Removing setup_node_data() from that loop leaves only the call to node_set(). If 3af229f2071f (which reduces node_possible_map) was reverted, you wouldn't need to do that either.
>>
>> With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something, somewhere to add new
>> bits to the 'node_possible_map'.  That is not being done.
> 
> You mustn't add bits to the possible map after boot.
> 
> That's its purpose, to tell you what nodes could ever *possibly* exist.

The problem that I have been encountering is that the 'possible map' did *not*
show all of the possible nodes.  Rather, it showed only the nodes that were
assigned memory at boot-up.  If more memory were hot-added to the kernel, it
could be assigned into one of the nodes that were skipped at boot.  However,
nothing was updating the 'node_possible_map' correctly in the kernel memory
code.

Reza pointed out a code change in commit 3af229f2071f that has not made it into
the 4.12 checkout i.e. removing the instruction that reduces the node_possible_map.
This may well be a suitable replacement for the code that I have here, and I
will test it here next.

> 
> cheers
> 
> 
Later.

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650213

Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On 05/24/2017 06:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>> With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something, somewhere to add new
>>> bits to the 'node_possible_map'.  That is not being done.
>> 
>> You mustn't add bits to the possible map after boot.
>> 
>> That's its purpose, to tell you what nodes could ever *possibly* exist.
>
> The problem that I have been encountering is that the 'possible map' did *not*
> show all of the possible nodes.

OK so how did that happen?

The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:

    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
    the lifetime of this kernel.

Is that no longer true?

cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650516

On 05/25/2017 01:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> On 05/24/2017 06:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> With or without 3af229f2071f, we would still need to add something, somewhere to add new
>>>> bits to the 'node_possible_map'.  That is not being done.
>>>
>>> You mustn't add bits to the possible map after boot.
>>>
>>> That's its purpose, to tell you what nodes could ever *possibly* exist.
>>
>> The problem that I have been encountering is that the 'possible map' did *not*
>> show all of the possible nodes.
> 
> OK so how did that happen?
> 
> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
> 
>     In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>     do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>     the lifetime of this kernel.
> 
> Is that no longer true?

Take a look at the last part of commit 3af229f2071f for file numa.c.  It undoes
a piece of code that restricts the 'node possible map', created earlier, to the
set of online nodes.  That piece of code has not made it into the mainline, at
least not into 4.12.  I am testing to verify whether it is sufficient for my
configuration now.

> 
> cheers
> 
Regards.

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650576

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>
>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>
>Is that no longer true?

I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time, 
but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is 
Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated 
3af229f2071f and reverts it.

With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing 
add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479253501-26261-1-git-send-email-bsingharora@gmail.com

-- 
Reza Arbab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650582

On 05/25/2017 10:10 AM, Reza Arbab wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>
>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>
>> Is that no longer true?
> 
> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time, but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
> 
> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479253501-26261-1-git-send-email-bsingharora@gmail.com
> 

Yes, the change to 'numa.c' looks to be sufficient for my needs as well.

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651061

On Thu, 25 May 2017 10:10:11 -0500
Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
> >
> >    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
> >    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
> >    the lifetime of this kernel.
> >
> >Is that no longer true?  
> 
> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time, 
> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is 
> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated 
> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
> 
> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing 
> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479253501-26261-1-git-send-email-bsingharora@gmail.com
> 

I guess I should try and revive that patchset. One of the suggestions of
then was to limit maximum possible nodes in firmware, but I'm double checking
to see if we can do that in a well defined manner.

Balbir Singh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651064

Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>
>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>
>>Is that no longer true?
>
> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time, 
> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is 
> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated 
> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
>
> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing 
> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.

But does that actually happen on any real system?

cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651360

I am running into this problem on PowerPC systems where Balbir's patch set
was targeted.  So, yes, I do need to be able to add/enable a new numa node
during system execution in cases where more resources (memory, virtual
processors) are added to the system dynamically.

On 05/25/2017 10:46 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>>
>>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>>
>>> Is that no longer true?
>>
>> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time, 
>> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is 
>> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated 
>> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
>>
>> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing 
>> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
> 
> But does that actually happen on any real system?
> 
> cheers
> 
> 

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651413

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>>
>>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>>
>>>Is that no longer true?
>>
>> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time,
>> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is
>> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated
>> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
>>
>> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing
>> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
>
>But does that actually happen on any real system?

I don't know if anything currently tries to do this. My interest in 
having this working is so that in the future, our coherent gpu memory 
could be added as a distinct node by the device driver.

-- 
Reza Arbab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1652236

Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>>The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>>>
>>>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>>>
>>>>Is that no longer true?
>>>
>>> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time,
>>> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is
>>> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated
>>> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
>>>
>>> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing
>>> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
>>
>>But does that actually happen on any real system?
>
> I don't know if anything currently tries to do this. My interest in 
> having this working is so that in the future, our coherent gpu memory 
> could be added as a distinct node by the device driver.

Sure. If/when that happens, we would hopefully still have some way to
limit the size of the possible map.

That would ideally be a firmware property that tells us the maximum
number of GPUs that might be hot-added, or we punt and cap it at some
"sane" maximum number.

But until that happens it's silly to say we can have up to 256 nodes
when in practice most of our systems have 8 or less.

So I'm still waiting for an explanation from Michael B on how he's
seeing this bug in practice.

cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1654282

On 05/29/2017 12:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>>> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>>>>
>>>>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>>>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>>>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that no longer true?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time,
>>>> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is
>>>> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated
>>>> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
>>>>
>>>> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing
>>>> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
>>>
>>> But does that actually happen on any real system?
>>
>> I don't know if anything currently tries to do this. My interest in 
>> having this working is so that in the future, our coherent gpu memory 
>> could be added as a distinct node by the device driver.
> 
> Sure. If/when that happens, we would hopefully still have some way to
> limit the size of the possible map.
> 
> That would ideally be a firmware property that tells us the maximum
> number of GPUs that might be hot-added, or we punt and cap it at some
> "sane" maximum number.
> 
> But until that happens it's silly to say we can have up to 256 nodes
> when in practice most of our systems have 8 or less.
> 
> So I'm still waiting for an explanation from Michael B on how he's
> seeing this bug in practice.

I already answered this in an earlier message.  I will give an example.

* Let there be a configuration with nodes (0, 4-5, 8) that boots with 1 VP
  and 10G of memory in a shared processor configuration.
* At boot time, 4 nodes are put into the possible map by the PowerPC boot
  code.
* Subsequently, the NUMA code executes and puts the 10G memory into nodes
  4 & 5.  No memory goes into Node 0.  So we now have 2 nodes in the
  node_online_map.
* The VP and its threads get assigned to Node 4.
* Then when 'initmem_init()' in 'powerpc/numa.c' executes the instruction,
     node_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);
  the content of the node_possible_map is reduced to nodes 4-5.
* Later on we hot-add 90G of memory to the system.  It tries to put the
  memory into nodes 0, 4-5, 8 based on the memory association map.  We
  should see memory put into all 4 nodes.  However, since we have reduced
  the 'node_possible_map' to only nodes 4 & 5, we can now only put memory
  into 2 of the configured nodes.

# We want to be able to put memory into all 4 nodes via hot-add operations,
  not only the nodes that 'survive' boot time initialization.  We could
  make a number of changes to ensure that all of the nodes in the initial
  configuration provided by the pHyp can be used, but this one appears to
  be the simplest, only using resources requested by the pHyp at boot --
  even if those resource are not used immediately.

> 
> cheers
> 

Regards,
Michael

-- 
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line  363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell:       (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1654966

Michael Bringmann <mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On 05/29/2017 12:32 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:46:58PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>> Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 04:19:53PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>>>> The commit message for 3af229f2071f says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    In practice, we never see a system with 256 NUMA nodes, and in fact, we
>>>>>>    do not support node hotplug on power in the first place, so the nodes
>>>>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>    that are online when we come up are the nodes that will be present for
>>>>>>    the lifetime of this kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that no longer true?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what the reasoning behind that statement was at the time,
>>>>> but as far as I can tell, the only thing missing for node hotplug now is
>>>>> Balbir's patchset [1]. He fixes the resource issue which motivated
>>>>> 3af229f2071f and reverts it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With that set, I can instantiate a new numa node just by doing
>>>>> add_memory(nid, ...) where nid doesn't currently exist.
>>>>
>>>> But does that actually happen on any real system?
>>>
>>> I don't know if anything currently tries to do this. My interest in 
>>> having this working is so that in the future, our coherent gpu memory 
>>> could be added as a distinct node by the device driver.
>> 
>> Sure. If/when that happens, we would hopefully still have some way to
>> limit the size of the possible map.
>> 
>> That would ideally be a firmware property that tells us the maximum
>> number of GPUs that might be hot-added, or we punt and cap it at some
>> "sane" maximum number.
>> 
>> But until that happens it's silly to say we can have up to 256 nodes
>> when in practice most of our systems have 8 or less.
>> 
>> So I'm still waiting for an explanation from Michael B on how he's
>> seeing this bug in practice.
>
> I already answered this in an earlier message.

Which one? I must have missed it.

> I will give an example.
>
> * Let there be a configuration with nodes (0, 4-5, 8) that boots with 1 VP
>   and 10G of memory in a shared processor configuration.
> * At boot time, 4 nodes are put into the possible map by the PowerPC boot
>   code.

I'm pretty sure we never add nodes to the possible map, it starts out
with MAX_NUMNODES possible and that's it.

Do you actually see mention of nodes 0 and 8 in the dmesg?

What does it say?

> * Subsequently, the NUMA code executes and puts the 10G memory into nodes
>   4 & 5.  No memory goes into Node 0.  So we now have 2 nodes in the
>   node_online_map.
> * The VP and its threads get assigned to Node 4.
> * Then when 'initmem_init()' in 'powerpc/numa.c' executes the instruction,
>      node_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);
>   the content of the node_possible_map is reduced to nodes 4-5.
> * Later on we hot-add 90G of memory to the system.  It tries to put the
>   memory into nodes 0, 4-5, 8 based on the memory association map.  We
>   should see memory put into all 4 nodes.  However, since we have reduced
>   the 'node_possible_map' to only nodes 4 & 5, we can now only put memory
>   into 2 of the configured nodes.

Right. So it's not that you're hot adding memory into a previously
unseen node as you implied in earlier mails.

> # We want to be able to put memory into all 4 nodes via hot-add operations,
>   not only the nodes that 'survive' boot time initialization.  We could
>   make a number of changes to ensure that all of the nodes in the initial
>   configuration provided by the pHyp can be used, but this one appears to
>   be the simplest, only using resources requested by the pHyp at boot --
>   even if those resource are not used immediately.

I don't think that's what the patch does. It just marks 32 (!?) nodes as
online. Or if you're talking about reverting 3af229f2071f that leaves
you with 256 possible nodes. Both of which are wasteful.

The right fix is to make sure any nodes which are present at boot remain
in the possible map, even if they don't have memory/CPUs assigned at
boot.

What does your device tree look like? Can you send us the output of:

 $ lsprop /proc/device-tree


cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1655778

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:36:31PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>I don't think that's what the patch does. It just marks 32 (!?) nodes 
>as online. Or if you're talking about reverting 3af229f2071f that 
>leaves you with 256 possible nodes. Both of which are wasteful.

To be clear, with Balbir's set the latter is no longer wasteful.

>The right fix is to make sure any nodes which are present at boot 
>remain in the possible map, even if they don't have memory/CPUs 
>assigned at boot.

I'm still hoping 3af229f2071f could indeed be reverted some day, but 
until then the following would follow your suggestion for our GPU nodes.  
What do you think?

--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
@@ -895,6 +895,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 void __init initmem_init(void)
 {
 	int nid, cpu;
+	struct device_node *dn;
 
 	max_low_pfn = memblock_end_of_DRAM() >> PAGE_SHIFT;
 	max_pfn = max_low_pfn;
@@ -911,6 +912,18 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
 	 */
 	nodes_and(node_possible_map, node_possible_map, node_online_map);
 
+	/*
+	 * Consider an ibm,coherent-device-memory node possible. Even though
+	 * it is not online at boot, it may be hotplugged later.
+	 */
+	for_each_compatible_node(dn, NULL, "ibm,coherent-device-memory") {
+		nid = of_node_to_nid_single(dn);
+		if (nid < 0)
+			continue;
+
+		node_set(nid, node_possible_map);
+	}
+
 	for_each_online_node(nid) {
 		unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
 

-- 
Reza Arbab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web