On Tue 24-09-19 14:59:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:43:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:25:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 24-09-19 14:09:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > We can push back and say we don't respect the specification because it > > > > is batshit insane ;-) > > > > > > Here is my fingers crossed. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Now granted; there's a number of virtual devices that really don't have > > > > a node affinity, but then, those are not hurt by forcing them onto a > > > > random node, they really don't do anything. Like: > > > > > > Do you really consider a random node a better fix than simply living > > > with a more robust NUMA_NO_NODE which tells the actual state? Page > > > allocator would effectivelly use the local node in that case. Any code > > > using the cpumask will know that any of the online cpus are usable. > > > > For the pmu devices? Yes, those 'devices' aren't actually used for > > anything other than sysfs entries. > > > > Nothing else uses the struct device. > > The below would get rid of the PMU and workqueue warnings with no > side-effects (the device isn't used for anything except sysfs). Hardcoding to 0 is simply wrong, if the node0 is cpuless for example... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
