lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [2.6.20][PATCH] fix mempolicy error check on a system with memory-less-node
    On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:05:56 -0800 (PST)
    Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

    > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
    >
    > > > IMHO there shouldn't be any memory less nodes. The architecture code
    > > > should not create them. The CPU should be assigned to a nearby node instead.
    > > > At least x86-64 ensures that.
    > > >
    > > AFAIK, ia64 creates nodes just depends on SRAT's possible resource information.
    > > Then, ia64 can create cpu-memory-less-node(node with no available resource.).
    > > (*)I don't like this.
    >
    > I think that is only true for !SN2 platforms? Could we fix this?
    >
    AFAIK, some vendor(HP?) has following configraion
    - node0 .... cpu only node
    - node1 .... cpu only node
    - node2 .... memory only node.
    This is because of their memory-interleave technique.

    Our 64cpu socket NUMA system also has a config
    - node0 cpu+memory node
    - node 1 - 7 cpu only node.
    for deviding scheduler domain.(old kernel had problem with big-sched-domain)

    To fix memory-less-node, we have to test the performance of
    "very-big-scheduler-domain" and to define the rule for cpu-hot-add, as
    "a new cpu will be added to the most nearby node"
    (node-hot-add will have to add some hook..)

    I don't know someone who created memory-less-node in past may have some other issues.

    There may be some complicated topology system with complicated PXM map.


    > > If we don't allow memory-less-node, we may have to add several codes for cpu-hot-add.
    > > cpus should be moved to nearby node at hotadd .
    > > And node-hot-add have to care that cpus mustn't be added before memory, cpu-driven
    > > node-hot-add will never occur. (ACPI's 'container' device spec can't guaranntee this.)
    >
    > Well you could bring down the cpu and bring it up again? This would also
    > assure the best placement of the runtime structures for node?
    >
    cpu-to-node relationship is fixed in the early stage of cpu hotplug.
    I'm not sure we can bring down/up cpu again in clean way. After a cpu is added,
    the kernel losts its original PXM value now.

    about runtime structures:
    The runtime structure placement for a hot-added-node is another issue here.
    I and Goto-san have a plan for optimized placement of structures and will
    try when we can do. (We are now assgined to RHEL5 stabilization tasks...)

    Moving per-cpu-area at hotadd does not look easy.
    IMHO, maybe we have to use stop_machine_run() to move it.

    Anyway, I'll post an another *easy* patch just for fix the NULL pointer access.
    please review.

    Thanks,
    -Kame






    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-07 16:31    [W:0.023 / U:34.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site