[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
On 03/02/2011 07:42 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:30:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>> Acked-by: David Rientjes <>
>> There's also this in numa_emulation() that isn't a safe assumption:
>> /* make sure all emulated nodes are mapped to a physical node */
>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(emu_nid_to_phys); i++)
>> if (emu_nid_to_phys[i] == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>> emu_nid_to_phys[i] = 0;
>> Node id 0 is not always online depending on how you setup your SRAT. I'm
>> not sure why emu_nid_to_phys[] would ever map a fake node id that doesn't
>> exist to a physical node id rather than NUMA_NO_NODE, so I think it can
>> just be removed. Otherwise, it should be mapped to a physical node id
>> that is known to be online.
> Unless I screwed up, that behavior isn't new. It just put in a
> different form. Looking through the code... Okay, I think node 0
> always exists. SRAT PXM isn't used as node number directly. It goes
> through acpi_map_pxm_to_node() which allocates nids from 0 up.
> amdtopology also guarantees the existence of node 0, so I think we're
> in the safe and that probably is the reason why we had the above
> behavior in the first place.
> IIRC, there are other places which assume the existence of node 0.
> Whether it's a good idea or not, I'm not sure but requring node 0 to
> be always allocated doesn't sound too wrong to me. Maybe we can add
> BUG_ON() if node 0 is offline somewhere.

When first socket does not have memory, we will not node 0 online.
and cpu_to_node() will have those cpus round to near node like node1 or node7.

BTW: this conf get broken several times, and get fixed several times.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-02 22:15    [W:0.129 / U:13.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site