On Tue 18-08-20 09:32:52, David Hildenbrand wrote: > 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; Agreed. That would be a safer option. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
