* Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> [2020-07-01 10:42:00]:

> > 
> > 2. Also existence of dummy node also leads to inconsistent information. The
> > number of online nodes is inconsistent with the information in the
> > device-tree and resource-dump
> > 
> > 3. When the dummy node is present, single node non-Numa systems end up 
> > showing
> > up as NUMA systems and numa_balancing gets enabled. This will mean we take
> > the hit from the unnecessary numa hinting faults.
> I have to say that I dislike the node online/offline state and directly
> exporting that to the userspace. Users should only care whether the node
> has memory/cpus. Numa nodes can be online without any memory. Just
> offline all the present memory blocks but do not physically hot remove
> them and you are in the same situation. If users are confused by an
> output of tools like numactl -H then those could be updated and hide
> nodes without any memory&cpus.
> The autonuma problem sounds interesting but again this patch doesn't
> really solve the underlying problem because I strongly suspect that the
> problem is still there when a numa node gets all its memory offline as
> mentioned above.
> While I completely agree that making node 0 special is wrong, I have
> still hard time to review this very simply looking patch because all the
> numa initialization is so spread around that this might just blow up
> at unexpected places. IIRC we have discussed testing in the previous
> version and David has provided a way to emulate these configurations
> on x86. Did you manage to use those instruction for additional testing
> on other than ppc architectures?

I have tried all the steps that David mentioned and reported back at

As a summary, David's steps are still not creating a memoryless/cpuless on
x86 VM. I have tried booting with Numa/non-numa on all the x86 machines that
I could get to.

Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

Reply via email to