On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:59:38 AM Dou Liyang wrote: > > 在 2016年07月26日 07:20, Andrew Morton 写道: > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:35:42 +0800 Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> [Problem] > >> > >> cpuid <-> nodeid mapping is firstly established at boot time. And workqueue caches > >> the mapping in wq_numa_possible_cpumask in wq_numa_init() at boot time. > >> > >> When doing node online/offline, cpuid <-> nodeid mapping is established/destroyed, > >> which means, cpuid <-> nodeid mapping will change if node hotplug happens. But > >> workqueue does not update wq_numa_possible_cpumask. > >> > >> So here is the problem: > >> > >> Assume we have the following cpuid <-> nodeid in the beginning: > >> > >> Node | CPU > >> ------------------------ > >> node 0 | 0-14, 60-74 > >> node 1 | 15-29, 75-89 > >> node 2 | 30-44, 90-104 > >> node 3 | 45-59, 105-119 > >> > >> and we hot-remove node2 and node3, it becomes: > >> > >> Node | CPU > >> ------------------------ > >> node 0 | 0-14, 60-74 > >> node 1 | 15-29, 75-89 > >> > >> and we hot-add node4 and node5, it becomes: > >> > >> Node | CPU > >> ------------------------ > >> node 0 | 0-14, 60-74 > >> node 1 | 15-29, 75-89 > >> node 4 | 30-59 > >> node 5 | 90-119 > >> > >> But in wq_numa_possible_cpumask, cpu30 is still mapped to node2, and the like. > >> > >> When a pool workqueue is initialized, if its cpumask belongs to a node, its > >> pool->node will be mapped to that node. And memory used by this workqueue will > >> also be allocated on that node. > > > > Plan B is to hunt down and fix up all the workqueue structures at > > hotplug-time. Has that option been evaluated? > > > > Yes, the option has been evaluate in this patch: > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2116748 > > > > > Your fix is x86-only and this bug presumably affects other > > architectures, yes?I think a "Plan B" would fix all architectures? > > > > Yes, the bug may presumably affect few architectures which support CPU > hotplug and NUMA. > > We have sent the "Plan B" in our community and got a lot of advice and > ideas. Based on these suggestions, We carefully balance that two plan. > Then we choice the first. > > > > > Thirdly, what is the merge path for these patches? Is an x86 > > or ACPI maintainer working with you on them? > > Yes, we get a lot of guidance and help from RJ who is an ACPI maintainer. FWIW, the patches are fine by me from the ACPI perspective. If you want me to apply them, though, ACKs from the x86 and mm maintainers will be necessary. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
