On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:58:09AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 07.08.20 06:32, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:28:23 +0530 Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> The memory hotplug changes that somehow because you can hotremove numa > >>> nodes and therefore make the nodemask sparse but that is not a common > >>> case. I am not sure what would happen if a completely new node was added > >>> and its corresponding node was already used by the renumbered one > >>> though. It would likely conflate the two I am afraid. But I am not sure > >>> this is really possible with x86 and a lack of a bug report would > >>> suggest that nobody is doing that at least. > >>> > >> > >> JFYI, > >> Satheesh copied in this mailchain had opened a bug a year on crash with vcpu > >> hotplug on memoryless node. > >> > >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202187 > > > > So... do we merge this patch or not? Seems that the overall view is > > "risky but nobody is likely to do anything better any time soon"? > > I recall the issue Michal saw was "fix powerpc" vs. "break other > architectures". @Michal how should we proceed? At least x86-64 won't be > affected IIUC. There is a patch to introduce the node remapping on ppc as well which should eliminate the empty node 0. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20200731111916.243569-1-aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks Michal
