Re: Topology updates and NUMA-level sched domains

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Apr 07 2015 - 06:22:07 EST

On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:45:58PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> As you are very aware, I think, power has some odd NUMA topologies (and
> changes to the those topologies) at run-time. In particular, we can see
> a topology at boot:
> Node 0: all Cpus
> Node 7: no cpus
> Then we get a notification from the hypervisor that a core (or two) have
> moved from node 0 to node 7. This results in the:

> or a re-init API (which won't try to reallocate various bits), because
> the topology could be completely different now (e.g.,
> sched_domains_numa_distance will also be inaccurate now). Really, a
> topology update on power (not sure on s390x, but those are the only two
> archs that return a positive value from arch_update_cpu_topology() right
> now, afaics) is a lot like a hotplug event and we need to re-initialize
> any dependent structures.
> I'm just sending out feelers, as we can limp by with the above warning,
> it seems, but is less than ideal. Any help or insight you could provide
> would be greatly appreciated!

So I think (and ISTR having stated this before) that dynamic cpu<->node
maps are absolutely insane.

There is a ton of stuff that assumes the cpu<->node relation is a boot
time fixed one. Userspace being one of them. Per-cpu memory another.

You simply cannot do this without causing massive borkage.

So please come up with a coherent plan to deal with the entire problem
of dynamic cpu to memory relation and I might consider the scheduler
impact. But we're not going to hack around and maybe make it not crash
in a few corner cases while the entire thing is shite.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at