* Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> [2020-04-29 14:22:11]:
> On Wed 29-04-20 07:11:45, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By marking, N_ONLINE as NODE_MASK_NONE, lets stop assuming that Node 0 is
> > > > always online.
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > @@ -116,8 +116,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(latent_entropy);
> > > > */
> > > > nodemask_t node_states[NR_NODE_STATES] __read_mostly = {
> > > > [N_POSSIBLE] = NODE_MASK_ALL,
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > > > + [N_ONLINE] = NODE_MASK_NONE,
> > > > +#else
> > > > [N_ONLINE] = { { [0] = 1UL } },
> > > > -#ifndef CONFIG_NUMA
> > > > [N_NORMAL_MEMORY] = { { [0] = 1UL } },
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> > > > [N_HIGH_MEMORY] = { { [0] = 1UL } },
> > >
> > > So on all other NUMA machines, when does node 0 get marked online?
> > >
> > > This change means that for some time during boot, such machines will
> > > now be running with node 0 marked as offline. What are the
> > > implications of this? Will something break?
> >
> > Till the nodes are detected, marking Node 0 as online tends to be redundant.
> > Because the system doesn't know if its a NUMA or a non-NUMA system.
> > Once we detect the nodes, we online them immediately. Hence I don't see any
> > side-effects or negative implications of this change.
> >
> > However if I am missing anything, please do let me know.
> >
> > >From my part, I have tested this on
> > 1. Non-NUMA Single node but CPUs and memory coming from zero node.
> > 2. Non-NUMA Single node but CPUs and memory coming from non-zero node.
> > 3. NUMA Multi node but with CPUs and memory from node 0.
> > 4. NUMA Multi node but with no CPUs and memory from node 0.
>
> Have you tested on something else than ppc? Each arch does the NUMA
> setup separately and this is a big mess. E.g. x86 marks even memory less
> nodes (see init_memory_less_node) as online.
>
while I have predominantly tested on ppc, I did test on X86 with CONFIG_NUMA
enabled/disabled on both single node and multi node machines.
However, I dont have a cpuless/memoryless x86 system.
> Honestly I have hard time to evaluate the effect of this patch. It makes
> some sense to assume all nodes offline before they get online but this
> is a land mine territory.
>
> I am also not sure what kind of problem this is going to address. You
> have mentioned numa balancing without many details.
1. On a machine with just one node with node number not being 0,
the current setup will end up showing 2 online nodes. And when there are
more than one online nodes, numa_balancing gets enabled.
Without patch
$ grep numa /proc/vmstat
numa_hit 95179
numa_miss 0
numa_foreign 0
numa_interleave 3764
numa_local 95179
numa_other 0
numa_pte_updates 1206973 <----------
numa_huge_pte_updates 4654 <----------
numa_hint_faults 19560 <----------
numa_hint_faults_local 19560 <----------
numa_pages_migrated 0
With patch
$ grep numa /proc/vmstat
numa_hit 322338756
numa_miss 0
numa_foreign 0
numa_interleave 3790
numa_local 322338756
numa_other 0
numa_pte_updates 0 <----------
numa_huge_pte_updates 0 <----------
numa_hint_faults 0 <----------
numa_hint_faults_local 0 <----------
numa_pages_migrated 0
So we have a redundant page hinting numa faults which we can avoid.
2. Few people have complained about existence of this dummy node when
parsing lscpu and numactl o/p. They somehow start to think that the tools
are reporting incorrectly or the kernel is not able to recognize resources
connected to the node.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
