On Wed 13-02-19 14:11:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:50:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 13-02-19 11:32:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:43:15AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > @@ -5259,6 +5261,11 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat) > > > > > > > > build_zonelists_in_node_order(pgdat, node_order, nr_nodes); > > > > build_thisnode_zonelists(pgdat); > > > > + > > > > + pr_info("node[%d] zonelist: ", pgdat->node_id); > > > > + for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, > > > > &pgdat->node_zonelists[ZONELIST_FALLBACK], MAX_NR_ZONES-1) > > > > + pr_cont("%d:%s ", zone_to_nid(zone), zone->name); > > > > + pr_cont("\n"); > > > > } > > > > > > Have you ran this by the SGI and other stupid large machine vendors? > > > > I do not have such a large machine handy. The biggest I have has > > handfull (say dozen) of NUMA nodes. > > > > > Traditionally they tend to want to remove such things instead of adding > > > them. > > > > I do not insist on this patch but I find it handy. If there is an > > opposition I will not miss it much. > > Well, I don't have machines like that either and don't mind the patch. > Just raising the issue; I've had the big iron boys complain about > similar things (typically printing something for every CPU, which gets > out of hand much faster than zones, but still).
Maybe we can try to push this through and revert if somebody complains about an excessive output. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs