Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

2019-10-14 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:25:09AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > Good luck, I don't really think that most, if any, of this is needed, > but hey, it's nice to clean it up where it can be :) Some of the virtual devices we have (that use devm) really ought to set the node too, like drivers/base/cpu.c and

Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

2019-10-11 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:27:54AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > But I failed to see why the above is related to making node_to_cpumask_map() > NUMA_NO_NODE aware? Your initial bug is for hns3, which is a PCI device, which really _MUST_ have a node assigned. It not having one, is a straight up

Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

2019-10-10 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:25:14PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2019-10-08 9:38 am, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > > On 2019/9/25 18:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:14:20PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > > > > From the discussion above, It seems making the node_to_cpumask_map()

Re: [PATCH v6] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

2019-09-24 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 24-09-19 13:23:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > To be honest I really fail to see why to object to a simple semantic > > that NUMA_NO_NODE imply all usable cpus. Could you explain that please? > > Because it feels wrong.