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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1741940 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: only dispaly online cpus of the numa node

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: only dispaly online cpus of the numa node "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> - 2017-09-29 08:50 +0200

#1741940 — Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: only dispaly online cpus of the numa node

On 2017/8/28 21:13, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 25-08-17 18:34:33, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:32:26AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> It seems this has slipped through cracks. Let's CC arm64 guys
>>>
>>> On Tue 20-06-17 20:43:28, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> When I executed numactl -H(which read /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/cpumap
>>>> and display cpumask_of_node for each node), but I got different result on
>>>> X86 and arm64. For each numa node, the former only displayed online CPUs,
>>>> and the latter displayed all possible CPUs. Unfortunately, both Linux
>>>> documentation and numactl manual have not described it clear.
>>>>
>>>> I sent a mail to ask for help, and Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> replied
>>>> that he preferred to print online cpus because it doesn't really make much
>>>> sense to bind anything on offline nodes.
>>>
>>> Yes printing offline CPUs is just confusing and more so when the
>>> behavior is not consistent over architectures. I believe that x86
>>> behavior is the more appropriate one because it is more logical to dump
>>> the NUMA topology and use it for affinity setting than adding one
>>> additional step to check the cpu state to achieve the same.
>>>
>>> It is true that the online/offline state might change at any time so the
>>> above might be tricky on its own but if we should at least make the
>>> behavior consistent.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>
>> The concept looks find to me, but shouldn't we use cpumask_var_t and
>> alloc/free_cpumask_var?
> 
> This will be safer but both callers of node_read_cpumap are shallow
> stack so I am not sure a stack is a limiting factor here.
> 
> Zhen Lei, would you care to update that part please?
> 
Sure, I will send v2 immediately.

I'm so sorry that missed this email until someone told me.

-- 
Thanks!
BestRegards

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web