On Wed 13-02-19 14:11:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:50:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 13-02-19 11:32:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:43:15AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > @@ -5259,6 +5261,11 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> > > >
> > > > build_zonelists_in_node_order(pgdat, node_order, nr_nodes);
> > > > build_thisnode_zonelists(pgdat);
> > > > +
> > > > + pr_info("node[%d] zonelist: ", pgdat->node_id);
> > > > + for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, &pgdat->node_zonelists[ZONELIST_FALLBACK], MAX_NR_ZONES-1)
> > > > + pr_cont("%d:%s ", zone_to_nid(zone), zone->name);
> > > > + pr_cont("\n");
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Have you ran this by the SGI and other stupid large machine vendors?
> >
> > I do not have such a large machine handy. The biggest I have has
> > handfull (say dozen) of NUMA nodes.
> >
> > > Traditionally they tend to want to remove such things instead of adding
> > > them.
> >
> > I do not insist on this patch but I find it handy. If there is an
> > opposition I will not miss it much.
>
> Well, I don't have machines like that either and don't mind the patch.
> Just raising the issue; I've had the big iron boys complain about
> similar things (typically printing something for every CPU, which gets
> out of hand much faster than zones, but still).
Maybe we can try to push this through and revert if somebody complains
about an excessive output.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
|