Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: Enable CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES by default for NUMA

[Hoan Tran]

Hi,


On 4/3/20 12:09 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 04/02/20 at 09:46pm, Hoan Tran wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > On 3/31/20 7:31 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > On 03/31/20 at 04:21pm, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 31-03-20 22:03:32, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 03/31/20 at 10:55am, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue 31-03-20 11:14:23, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > > > Maybe I mis-read the code, but I don't see how this could happen. In the
> > > > > > > HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y case, free_area_init_node() calls
> > > > > > > calculate_node_totalpages() that ensures that node->node_zones are entirely
> > > > > > > within the node because this is checked in zone_spanned_pages_in_node().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > zone_spanned_pages_in_node does chech the zone boundaries are within the
> > > > > > node boundaries. But that doesn't really tell anything about other
> > > > > > potential zones interleaving with the physical memory range.
> > > > > > zone->spanned_pages simply gives the physical range for the zone
> > > > > > including holes. Interleaving nodes are essentially a hole
> > > > > > (__absent_pages_in_range is going to skip those).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That means that when free_area_init_core simply goes over the whole
> > > > > > physical zone range including holes and that is why we need to check
> > > > > > both for physical and logical holes (aka other nodes).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The life would be so much easier if the whole thing would simply iterate
> > > > > > over memblocks...
> > > > >
> > > > > The memblock iterating sounds a great idea. I tried with putting the
> > > > > memblock iterating in the upper layer, memmap_init(), which is used for
> > > > > boot mem only anyway. Do you think it's doable and OK? It yes, I can
> > > > > work out a formal patch to make this simpler as you said. The draft code
> > > > > is as below. Like this it uses the existing code and involves little change.
> > > >
> > > > Doing this would be a step in the right direction! I haven't checked the
> > > > code very closely though. The below sounds way too simple to be truth I
> > > > am afraid. First for_each_mem_pfn_range is available only for
> > > > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (which is one of the reasons why I keep
> > > > saying that I really hate that being conditional). Also I haven't really
> > > > checked the deferred initialization path - I have a very vague
> > > > recollection that it has been converted to the memblock api but I have
> > > > happilly dropped all that memory.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your quick response and pointing out the rest suspect aspects,
> > > I will investigate what you mentioned, see if they impact.
> >
> > I would like to check if we still move on with my patch to remove
> > CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES and have another patch on top it?
>
> I think we would like to replace CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES with
> CONFIG_NUMA, and just let UMA return 0 as node id, as Michal replied in
> another mail. Anyway, your patch 2~5 are still needed to sit on top of
> the change of this new plan.

Got it. Thanks for quick response.

Regards
Hoan
>