On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 18:16 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >
> > > Doing that papers over something that is clearly a FW issue and makes
> > > it "my performance is suboptimal" deal with it OS problem. Really, is
> > > this something we have to care about. Your changelog talks about a Qemu
On 16.04.20 18:13, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:19 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 15-04-20 20:32:00, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
I really do not like this. Why should we try to be clever and change the
node id requested by the caller? I would just stick with
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 08:19 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 15-04-20 20:32:00, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > >
> > > I really do not like this. Why should we try to be clever and change the
> > > node id requested by the caller? I would just stick with node_possible
> > > check and be done with
On Wed 15-04-20 20:32:00, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 12:43 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 14-04-20 17:58:12, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +static int check_hotplug_node(int nid)
> > > +{
> > > + int alt_nid;
> > > +
> > > + if (node_possible(nid))
> > > +
On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 12:43 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 14-04-20 17:58:12, Vishal Verma wrote:
> [...]
> > +static int check_hotplug_node(int nid)
> > +{
> > + int alt_nid;
> > +
> > + if (node_possible(nid))
> > + return nid;
> > +
> > + alt_nid =
On Tue 14-04-20 17:58:12, Vishal Verma wrote:
[...]
> +static int check_hotplug_node(int nid)
> +{
> + int alt_nid;
> +
> + if (node_possible(nid))
> + return nid;
> +
> + alt_nid = numa_map_to_online_node(nid);
> + if (alt_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> + alt_nid =
On 15.04.20 09:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.04.20 01:58, Vishal Verma wrote:
>> A misbehaving qemu created a situation where the ACPI SRAT table
>> advertised one fewer proximity domains than intended. The NFIT table did
>> describe all the expected proximity domains. This caused the
On 15.04.20 01:58, Vishal Verma wrote:
> A misbehaving qemu created a situation where the ACPI SRAT table
> advertised one fewer proximity domains than intended. The NFIT table did
> describe all the expected proximity domains. This caused the device dax
> driver to assign an impossible
A misbehaving qemu created a situation where the ACPI SRAT table
advertised one fewer proximity domains than intended. The NFIT table did
describe all the expected proximity domains. This caused the device dax
driver to assign an impossible target_node to the device, and when
hotplugged as system
