Re: [PATCH] Fix fake numa on ppc
From: Balbir Singh <hidden>
Date: 2009-09-01 14:28:25
Also in:
lkml
* Ankita Garg [off-list ref] [2009-09-01 14:54:07]:
Hi Balbir, On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:27:53AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:quoted
* Ankita Garg [off-list ref] [2009-09-01 10:33:16]:quoted
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 exampleThanks for the quick review of the patch. Here is some information on the testing: Tested the patch with the following commandlines: numa=fake=2G,4G,6G,8G,10G,12G,14G,16G numa=fake=3G,6G,10G,16G numa=fake=4G numa=fake= For testing if the fake nodes respect the real node boundaries, I added some debug printks in the node creation path. Without the patch, for the commandline numa=fake=2G,4G,6G,8G,10G,12G,14G,16G, this is what I got: fake id: 1 nid: 0 fake id: 1 nid: 0 ... fake id: 2 nid: 0 fake id: 2 nid: 0 ... fake id: 2 nid: 0 created new fake_node with id 3 fake id: 3 nid: 0 fake id: 3 nid: 0 ... fake id: 3 nid: 0 fake id: 3 nid: 0 fake id: 3 nid: 1 fake id: 3 nid: 1 ... created new fake_node with id 4 fake id: 4 nid: 1 fake id: 4 nid: 1 ... and so on. So, fake node 3 encompasses real node 0 & 1. Also, # cat /sys/devices/system/node/node3/meminfo Node 0 MemTotal: 2097152 kB ... # # cat /sys/devices/system/node/node4/meminfo Node 0 MemTotal: 2097152 kB ... With the patch, I get: fake id: 1 nid: 0 fake id: 1 nid: 0 ... fake id: 2 nid: 0 fake id: 2 nid: 0 ... fake id: 2 nid: 0 created new fake_node with id 3 fake id: 3 nid: 0 fake id: 3 nid: 0 ... fake id: 3 nid: 0 fake id: 3 nid: 0 created new fake_node with id 4 fake id: 4 nid: 1 fake id: 4 nid: 1 ... and so on. With the patch, the fake node sizes are slightly different from that specified by the user. # cat /sys/devices/system/node/node3/meminfo Node 3 MemTotal: 1638400 kB ... # cat /sys/devices/system/node/node4/meminfo Node 4 MemTotal: 458752 kB ... CPU association was tested as mentioned in the previous mail: Without the patch, # 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 # With the patch, # 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
Oh! interesting.. cpuless nodes :) I think we need to fix this in the longer run and distribute cpus between fake numa nodes of a real node using some acceptable heuristic.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
# cat /sys/devices/system/node/node4/cpulist 4-7quoted
quoted
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 brokenFixed.quoted
quoted
+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?Yes, makes sense.quoted
quoted
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 niceThanks, have added the comment.quoted
quoted
+ 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.fake_enabled does get set even for numa=fake=. However, it does not impact numa_setup_cpu, since fake_numa_node_mapping array would have no mapping stored and there is a condition there already to check for the value of the mapping. I confirmed this by booting with the above parameter as well.quoted
quoted
+ } return 0; }Overall, I think this is the right thing to do, we need to move in this direction.Heres the updated patch: 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 +26,13 @@ #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 + */ +int fake_numa_node_mapping[MAX_NUMNODES]; static char *cmdline __initdata;@@ -49,14 +56,29 @@ static int __cpuinit fake_numa_create_ne unsigned long long mem; char *p = cmdline; static unsigned int fake_nid; + static unsigned int prev_nid = 0; 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) { + /* + * Moved over to the next real numa node, increment fake + * node number and store the mapping of the real node to + * the fake node + */ + if (prev_nid != *nid) { + fake_nid++; + fake_numa_node_mapping[*nid] = fake_nid; + prev_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 +462,7 @@ 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 +472,15 @@ 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 +1034,12 @@ 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; + } + } return 0; }
Looks good to me Reviewed-by: Balbir Singh <redacted> -- Balbir