[PATCH 1/1] powerpc/smp: Set numa node before updating mask

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Nathan Lynch <nathanl at linux.ibm.com> [2021-04-07 14:46:24]:

> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > * Nathan Lynch <nathanl at linux.ibm.com> [2021-04-07 07:19:10]:
> >
> >> Sorry for the delay in following up here.
> >> 
> >
> > No issues.
> >
> >> >> So I'd suggest that pseries_add_processor() be made to update
> >> >> these things when the CPUs are marked present, before onlining them.
> >> >
> >> > In pseries_add_processor, we are only marking the cpu as present. i.e
> >> > I believe numa_setup_cpu() would not have been called. So we may not have a
> >> > way to associate the CPU to the node. Otherwise we will have to call
> >> > numa_setup_cpu() or the hcall_vphn.
> >> >
> >> > We could try calling numa_setup_cpu() immediately after we set the
> >> > CPU to be present, but that would be one more extra hcall + I dont know if
> >> > there are any more steps needed before CPU being made present and
> >> > associating the CPU to the node.
> >> 
> >> An additional hcall in this path doesn't seem too expensive.
> >> 
> >> > Are we sure the node is already online?
> >> 
> >> I see that dlpar_online_cpu() calls find_and_online_cpu_nid(), so yes I
> >> think that's covered.
> >
> > Okay, 
> >
> > Can we just call set_cpu_numa_node() at the end of map_cpu_to_node().
> > The advantage would be the update to numa_cpu_lookup_table and cpu_to_node
> > would happen at the same time and would be in sync.
> 
> I don't know. I guess this question just makes me wonder whether powerpc
> needs to have the additional lookup table. How is it different from the
> generic per_cpu numa_node?

lookup table is for early cpu to node i.e when per_cpu variables may not be
available. This would mean that calling set_numa_node/set_cpu_numa_node from
map_cpu_to_node() may not always be an option, since map_cpu_to_node() does
end up getting called very early in the system.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju