Re: [PATCH v5] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

[Yunsheng Lin]

On 2019/9/17 17:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-09-19 14:20:11, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 2019/9/17 13:28, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
>>>> But we cannot really copy the page allocator logic. Simply because the
>>>> page allocator doesn't enforce the near node affinity. It just picks it
>>>> up as a preferred node but then it is free to fallback to any other numa
>>>> node. This is not the case here and node_to_cpumask_map will only restrict
>>>> to the particular node's cpus which would have really non deterministic
>>>> behavior depending on where the code is executed. So in fact we really
>>>> want to return cpu_online_mask for NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>>>
>>>> Some arches were already NUMA_NO_NODE aware, but they return cpu_all_mask,
>>>> which should be identical with cpu_online_mask when those arches do not
>>>> support cpu hotplug, this patch also changes them to return cpu_online_mask
>>>> in order to be consistent and use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of "-1".
>>>
>>> Except some of those arches *do* support CPU hotplug, powerpc and sparc
>>> at least. So switching from cpu_all_mask to cpu_online_mask is a
>>> meaningful change.
>>
>> Yes, thanks for pointing out.
>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean it's wrong, but you need to explain why it's the right
>>> change.
>>
>> How about adding the below to the commit log:
>> Even if some of the arches do support CPU hotplug, it does not make sense
>> to return the cpu that has been hotplugged.
>>
>> Any suggestion?
> 
> Again, for the third time, I believe. Make it a separate patch please.
> There is absolutely no reason to conflate those two things.

Ok, thanks.
Will make the cpu_all_mask -> cpu_online_mask change a separate patch.

Also, do you think it is better to resend this as individual patches for each arch
or have all these changes in a single patch? I am not sure which is the common
practice for a multi-arches changes like this.

>