lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/2] handle memoryless nodes more appropriately
From
Hi David,

On 2023/10/19 15:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.10.23 09:36, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Currently, in the process of initialization or offline memory, memoryless
>> nodes will still be built into the fallback list of itself or other
>> nodes.
>>
>> This is not what we expected, so this patch series removes memoryless
>> nodes from the fallback list entirely.
>
> What's the end result of this change -- IOW why do we care? Patch #1
> mentions "which will reduce runtime overhead." and patch #2 mentions
> "This will incur some runtime overhead.". IIUC the comment in patch #1
> correctly, these changes don't fix anything, correct?

Yes, after dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain in x86, the panic
problem fixed by this patch no longer exists (Unless there are other
architectures that have this constrain).

The reason I am re-sending this patch is that I agree with Ingo's point
of view:

```
While I agree with dropping the limitation, and I agree that
9391a3f9c7f1 should have provided more of a justification, I believe a
core MM fix is in order as well, for it to not crash.
```

I also think that core MM should be safe (not crash) even in some weird
topology.

>
> Did you look into showing a performance gain?
>

No, and I think the performance gain should be small, after all it just
traverses one less node. ;)

Thanks,
Qi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-19 11:13    [W:0.088 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site