On 12.08.20 08:01, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > Hi Andrew, Michal, David > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2020-08-06 21:32:11]: > >> 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"? > > Can we decide on this one way or the other? Hmm, not sure who's the person to decide. I tend to prefer doing the node renaming, handling this in ppc code; looking at the review of v2 there are still some concerns regarding numa distances. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20200817103238.158133-1-aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
