On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 22:16:30 +0800 tzm <tcm1030@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> It will be failed to disable numa balancing policy permanently by passing
> <numa_balancing=disable> to boot cmdline parameters.
> The numabalancing_override variable is int and 1 for enable -1 for disable.
> So, !enumabalancing_override will always be true, which cause this bug.
That's really old code!
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -2865,7 +2865,7 @@ static void __init check_numabalancing_enable(void)
> if (numabalancing_override)
> set_numabalancing_state(numabalancing_override == 1);
>
> - if (num_online_nodes() > 1 && !numabalancing_override) {
> + if (num_online_nodes() > 1 && (numabalancing_override == 1)) {
> pr_info("%s automatic NUMA balancing. Configure with numa_balancing= or the kernel.numa_balancing sysctl\n",
> numabalancing_default ? "Enabling" : "Disabling");
> set_numabalancing_state(numabalancing_default);
Looks right to me. Mel?
After eight years, I wonder if we actually need this.
