[v3,10/26] x86/numa: simplify numa_distance allocation

Commit Message

Mike Rapoport Aug. 1, 2024, 6:08 a.m. UTC

From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[e-mail]>

Allocation of numa_distance uses memblock_phys_alloc_range() to limit
allocation to be below the last mapped page.

But NUMA initializaition runs after the direct map is populated and
there is also code in setup_arch() that adjusts memblock limit to
reflect how much memory is already mapped in the direct map.

Simplify the allocation of numa_distance and use plain memblock_alloc().

Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[e-mail]>
Tested-by: Zi Yan <[e-mail]> # for x86_64 and arm64
---
 arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Jonathan Cameron Aug. 2, 2024, 9:56 a.m. UTC | #1

On Thu,  1 Aug 2024 09:08:10 +0300
Mike Rapoport <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Allocation of numa_distance uses memblock_phys_alloc_range() to limit
> allocation to be below the last mapped page.
> 
> But NUMA initializaition runs after the direct map is populated and
> there is also code in setup_arch() that adjusts memblock limit to
> reflect how much memory is already mapped in the direct map.
> 
> Simplify the allocation of numa_distance and use plain memblock_alloc().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[e-mail]>
> Tested-by: Zi Yan <[e-mail]> # for x86_64 and arm64
Seems sensible. FWIW (which might just be me not bothering to
read this one again ;) 
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <[e-mail]>

David Hildenbrand Aug. 6, 2024, 1:08 p.m. UTC | #2

On 01.08.24 08:08, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Allocation of numa_distance uses memblock_phys_alloc_range() to limit
> allocation to be below the last mapped page.
> 
> But NUMA initializaition runs after the direct map is populated and
> there is also code in setup_arch() that adjusts memblock limit to
> reflect how much memory is already mapped in the direct map.
> 
> Simplify the allocation of numa_distance and use plain memblock_alloc().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[e-mail]>
> Tested-by: Zi Yan <[e-mail]> # for x86_64 and arm64
> ---

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <[e-mail]>

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
index 5e1dde26674b..edfc38803779 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
@@ -331,7 +331,6 @@  static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 	nodemask_t nodes_parsed;
 	size_t size;
 	int i, j, cnt = 0;
-	u64 phys;
 
 	/* size the new table and allocate it */
 	nodes_parsed = numa_nodes_parsed;
@@ -342,16 +341,14 @@  static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 	cnt++;
 	size = cnt * cnt * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
 
-	phys = memblock_phys_alloc_range(size, PAGE_SIZE, 0,
-					 PFN_PHYS(max_pfn_mapped));
-	if (!phys) {
+	numa_distance = memblock_alloc(size, PAGE_SIZE);
+	if (!numa_distance) {
 		pr_warn("Warning: can't allocate distance table!\n");
 		/* don't retry until explicitly reset */
 		numa_distance = (void *)1LU;
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
-	numa_distance = __va(phys);
 	numa_distance_cnt = cnt;
 
 	/* fill with the default distances */