Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] x86: numa: check the node id consistently for x86
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Sep 03 2019 - 03:13:03 EST
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 02:19:04PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/9/2 20:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 08:25:24PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> On 2019/9/2 15:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:46:51PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >>>> On 2019/9/1 0:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>> 1) because even it is not set, the device really does belong to a node.
> >>>>> It is impossible a device will have magic uniform access to memory when
> >>>>> CPUs cannot.
> >>>> So it means dev_to_node() will return either NUMA_NO_NODE or a
> >>>> valid node id?
> >>> NUMA_NO_NODE := -1, which is not a valid node number. It is also, like I
> >>> said, not a valid device location on a NUMA system.
> >>> Just because ACPI/BIOS is shit, doesn't mean the device doesn't have a
> >>> node association. It just means we don't know and might have to guess.
> >> How do we guess the device's location when ACPI/BIOS does not set it?
> > See device_add(), it looks to the device's parent and on NO_NODE, puts
> > it there.
> > Lacking any hints, just stick it to node0 and print a FW_BUG or
> > something.
> >> It seems dev_to_node() does not do anything about that and leave the
> >> job to the caller or whatever function that get called with its return
> >> value, such as cpumask_of_node().
> > Well, dev_to_node() doesn't do anything; nor should it. It are the
> > callers of set_dev_node() that should be taking care.
> > Also note how device_add() sets the device node to the parent device's
> > node on NUMA_NO_NODE. Arguably we should change it to complain when it
> > finds NUMA_NO_NODE and !parent.
> Is it possible that the node id set by device_add() become invalid
> if the node is offlined, then dev_to_node() may return a invalid
> node id.
In that case I would expect the device to go away too. Once the memory
controller goes away, the PCI bus connected to it cannot continue to
> From the comment in select_fallback_rq(), it seems that a node can
> be offlined, not sure if node offline process has taken cared of that?
> * If the node that the CPU is on has been offlined, cpu_to_node()
> * will return -1. There is no CPU on the node, and we should
> * select the CPU on the other node.
Ugh, so I disagree with that notion. cpu_to_node() mapping should be
fixed, you simply cannot change it after boot, too much stuff relies on
Setting cpu_to_node to -1 on node offline is just wrong. But alas, it
seems this is already so.
> With the above assumption that a device is always on a valid node,
> the node id returned from dev_to_node() can be safely passed to
> cpumask_of_node() without any checking?