On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:55:40 -0500 Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:56:04AM -0500, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > I think the underlying issue you're dealing with is that the system is > > creating more nodes for you than it should. > > > > Looking into this for other reasons, I think you are right that multiple > numa nodes can exist that cover the same memory - just different > regions. > I understand your concerns, and I agree that the most critical issue at the moment is that the system is generating more nodes than necessary. We need to conduct a more thorough analysis of this problem, but a detailed investigation will require a significant amount of time. In this context, these patches might offer a quick solution to address the issue. Additionally, it's important to note that not many CXL devices have been developed yet, and their operations are not entirely optimized. Therefore, we might encounter behaviors from CXL devices and servers that differ from our expectations. I hope these patches can serve as a solution for unforeseen issues. > I can see why you would want to hide the nodes that don't actively have > memory online, but i still have concerns for nodes that may come and > go and hiding this configuration from the user until memory arrives. > > An example would be a DCD device where a node could add or remove memory > at any time. If you removed the last block of memory, the node would > disappear - but the block could come back at any time. That seems > problematic, as you might want to manage that node while no memory is > present. > > ~Gregory Of course, the patches may need further refinements. Therefore, I plan to simplify the patches and remove any unnecessary modifications in the upcoming version 2 update. Once it's ready, I would be very grateful if you could take the time to review version 2 and share any further feedback you might have. Rakie
