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?
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.
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>