[RFC PATCH 2/3] topology: support node_numa_mem() for determining the fallback node

Nishanth Aravamudan nacc at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Jul 22 11:03:05 EST 2014

On 10.02.2014 [10:09:36 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 01:57:39AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 
> > > > It seems like a better approach would be to do this when a node is brought 
> > > > online and determine the fallback node based not on the zonelists as you 
> > > > do here but rather on locality (such as through a SLIT if provided, see 
> > > > node_distance()).
> > > 
> > > Hmm...
> > > I guess that zonelist is base on locality. Zonelist is generated using
> > > node_distance(), so I think that it reflects locality. But, I'm not expert
> > > on NUMA, so please let me know what I am missing here :)
> > > 
> > 
> > The zonelist is, yes, but I'm talking about memoryless and cpuless nodes.  
> > If your solution is going to become the generic kernel API that determines 
> > what node has local memory for a particular node, then it will have to 
> > support all definitions of node.  That includes nodes that consist solely 
> > of I/O, chipsets, networking, or storage devices.  These nodes may not 
> > have memory or cpus, so doing it as part of onlining cpus isn't going to 
> > be generic enough.  You want a node_to_mem_node() API for all possible 
> > node types (the possible node types listed above are straight from the 
> > ACPI spec).  For 99% of people, node_to_mem_node(X) is always going to be 
> > X and we can optimize for that, but any solution that relies on cpu online 
> > is probably shortsighted right now.
> > 
> > I think it would be much better to do this as a part of setting a node to 
> > be online.
> Okay. I got your point.
> I will change it to rely on node online if this patch is really needed.

Sorry for bringing up this old thread again, but I had a question for
you, David. node_to_mem_node(), which does seem like a useful API,
doesn't seem like it can just node_distance() solely, right? Because
that just tells us the relative cost (or so I think about it) of using
resources from that node. But we also need to know if that node itself
has memory, etc. So using the zonelists is required no matter what? And
upon memory hotplug (or unplug), the topology can change in a way that
affects things, so node online time isn't right either?


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list