Thread (10 messages) flat view 10 messages, 4 authors, 2009-09-02

Re: [PATCH] Fix fake numa on ppc

From: Balbir Singh <hidden>
Date: 2009-09-01 05:57:56
Also in: lkml

* Ankita Garg [off-list ref] [2009-09-01 10:33:16]:
Hello,

Below is a patch to fix a couple of issues with fake numa node creation
on ppc:

1) Presently, fake nodes could be created such that real numa node
boundaries are not respected. So a node could have lmbs that belong to
different real nodes.

2) The cpu association is broken. On a JS22 blade for example, which is
a 2-node numa machine, I get the following:

# cat /proc/cmdline
root=/dev/sda6  numa=fake=2G,4G,,6G,8G,10G,12G,14G,16G
# cat /sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpulist
0-3
# cat /sys/devices/system/node/node1/cpulist
4-7
# cat /sys/devices/system/node/node4/cpulist

#

So, though the cpus 4-7 should have been associated with node4, they
still belong to node1. The patch works by recording a real numa node
boundary and incrementing the fake node count. At the same time, a
mapping is stored from the real numa node to the first fake node that
gets created on it.
Some details on how you tested it and results before and after would
be nice. Please see git commit 1daa6d08d1257aa61f376c3cc4795660877fb9e3
for example

 
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Any suggestions on improving the patch are most welcome!

Signed-off-by: Ankita Garg <redacted>

Index: linux-2.6.31-rc5/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.31-rc5.orig/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
+++ linux-2.6.31-rc5/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
 #include <asm/smp.h>

 static int numa_enabled = 1;
+static int fake_enabled = 1;
+
+/* The array maps a real numa node to the first fake node that gets
+created on it */
Coding style is broken
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+int fake_numa_node_mapping[MAX_NUMNODES];

 static char *cmdline __initdata;
@@ -49,14 +54,24 @@ static int __cpuinit fake_numa_create_ne
 	unsigned long long mem;
 	char *p = cmdline;
 	static unsigned int fake_nid;
+	static unsigned int orig_nid = 0;
Should we call this prev_nid?
 	static unsigned long long curr_boundary;

 	/*
 	 * Modify node id, iff we started creating NUMA nodes
 	 * We want to continue from where we left of the last time
 	 */
-	if (fake_nid)
+	if (fake_nid) {
+		if (orig_nid != *nid) {
OK, so this is called when the real NUMA node changes - comments would
be nice
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+			fake_nid++;
+			fake_numa_node_mapping[*nid] = fake_nid;
+			orig_nid = *nid;
+			*nid = fake_nid;
+			return 0;
+		}
 		*nid = fake_nid;
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * In case there are no more arguments to parse, the
 	 * node_id should be the same as the last fake node id
@@ -440,7 +455,7 @@ static int of_drconf_to_nid_single(struc
  */
 static int __cpuinit numa_setup_cpu(unsigned long lcpu)
 {
-	int nid = 0;
+	int nid = 0, new_nid;
 	struct device_node *cpu = of_get_cpu_node(lcpu, NULL);

 	if (!cpu) {
@@ -450,8 +465,15 @@ static int __cpuinit numa_setup_cpu(unsi

 	nid = of_node_to_nid_single(cpu);

+	if (fake_enabled && nid) {
+		new_nid = fake_numa_node_mapping[nid];
+		if (new_nid > 0)
+			nid = new_nid;
+	}
+
 	if (nid < 0 || !node_online(nid))
 		nid = any_online_node(NODE_MASK_ALL);
+
 out:
 	map_cpu_to_node(lcpu, nid);
@@ -1005,8 +1027,11 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p)
 		numa_debug = 1;

 	p = strstr(p, "fake=");
-	if (p)
+	if (p) {
 		cmdline = p + strlen("fake=");
+		if (numa_enabled)
+			fake_enabled = 1;
Have you tried passing just numa=fake= without any commandline?
That should enable fake_enabled, but I wonder if that negatively
impacts numa_setup_cpu(). I wonder if you should look at cmdline
to decide on fake_enabled.
+	}

 	return 0;
 }
Overall, I think this is the right thing to do, we need to move in
this direction. 

-- 
	Balbir
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help