On 2014/7/25 7:30, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 11.07.2014 [15:37:47 +0800], Jiang Liu wrote:
>> With typical CPU hot-addition flow on x86, PCI host bridges embedded
>> in physical processor are always associated with NOMA_NO_NODE, which
>> may cause sub-optimal performance.
>> 1) Handle CPU hot-addition notification
>> acpi_processor_add()
>> acpi_processor_get_info()
>> acpi_processor_hotadd_init()
>> acpi_map_lsapic()
>> 1.a) acpi_map_cpu2node()
>>
>> 2) Handle PCI host bridge hot-addition notification
>> acpi_pci_root_add()
>> pci_acpi_scan_root()
>> 2.a) if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_online(node)) node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>
>> 3) Handle memory hot-addition notification
>> acpi_memory_device_add()
>> acpi_memory_enable_device()
>> add_memory()
>> 3.a) node_set_online();
>>
>> 4) Online CPUs through sysfs interfaces
>> cpu_subsys_online()
>> cpu_up()
>> try_online_node()
>> 4.a) node_set_online();
>>
>> So associated node is always in offline state because it is onlined
>> until step 3.a or 4.a.
>>
>> We could improve performance by online node at step 1.a. This change
>> also makes the code symmetric. Nodes are always created when handling
>> CPU/memory hot-addition events instead of handling user requests from
>> sysfs interfaces, and are destroyed when handling CPU/memory hot-removal
>> events.
>
> It seems like this patch has little to nothing to do with the rest of
> the series and can be sent on its own?
>
>> It also close a race window caused by kmalloc_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)),
>
> To be clear, the race is that on some x86 platforms, there is a period
> of time where a node ID returned by cpu_to_node() is offline.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
>> index 3b5641703a49..00c2ed507460 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
>> @@ -611,6 +611,7 @@ static void acpi_map_cpu2node(acpi_handle handle, int cpu, int physid)
>> nid = acpi_get_node(handle);
>> if (nid != -1) {
>> set_apicid_to_node(physid, nid);
>> + try_online_node(nid);
>
> try_online_node() seems like it can fail? I assume it's a pretty rare
> case, but should the return code be checked?
Good suggestion, I should split out this patch to fix the crash.
>
> If it does fail, it seems like there are pretty serious problems and we
> shouldn't be onlining this CPU, etc.?
>
>> numa_set_node(cpu, nid);
>> if (node_online(nid))
>> set_cpu_numa_mem(cpu, local_memory_node(nid));
>
> Which means you can remove this check presuming try_online_node()
> returned 0.
Yes, that's true.
>
> Thanks,
> Nish
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>