| Message ID | 20240801060826.559858-12-rppt@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: introduce numa_memblks | expand |
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:08:11 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > Instead of looping over numa_meminfo array to detect node's start and > end addresses use get_pfn_range_for_init(). > > This is shorter and make it easier to lift numa_memblks to generic code. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> > Tested-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> # for x86_64 and arm64 Fair enough given code a few lines up has set the node for all the memblocks so this should I think give the same effective result. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 13 +++---------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index edfc38803779..cfe7e5477cf8 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -521,17 +521,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > /* Finally register nodes. */ > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { > - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); > - u64 end = 0; > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; > > - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { > - if (nid != mi->blk[i].nid) > - continue; > - start = min(mi->blk[i].start, start); > - end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); > - } > - > - if (start >= end) > + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) > continue; > > alloc_node_data(nid);
Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > Instead of looping over numa_meminfo array to detect node's start and > end addresses use get_pfn_range_for_init(). > > This is shorter and make it easier to lift numa_memblks to generic code. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> > Tested-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> # for x86_64 and arm64 > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 13 +++---------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index edfc38803779..cfe7e5477cf8 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -521,17 +521,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > /* Finally register nodes. */ > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { > - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); > - u64 end = 0; > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; > > - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { > - if (nid != mi->blk[i].nid) > - continue; > - start = min(mi->blk[i].start, start); > - end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); > - } > - > - if (start >= end) > + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) Assuming I understand why this works, would it be worth a comment like: "Note, get_pfn_range_for_nid() depends on memblock_set_node() having already happened" ...at least that context was not part of the diff so took me second to figure out how this works.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 01:03:56PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > > > Instead of looping over numa_meminfo array to detect node's start and > > end addresses use get_pfn_range_for_init(). > > > > This is shorter and make it easier to lift numa_memblks to generic code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> > > Tested-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> # for x86_64 and arm64 > > --- > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 13 +++---------- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > index edfc38803779..cfe7e5477cf8 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > @@ -521,17 +521,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > > > /* Finally register nodes. */ > > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { > > - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); > > - u64 end = 0; > > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; > > > > - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { > > - if (nid != mi->blk[i].nid) > > - continue; > > - start = min(mi->blk[i].start, start); > > - end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); > > - } > > - > > - if (start >= end) > > + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); > > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) > > Assuming I understand why this works, would it be worth a comment like: > > "Note, get_pfn_range_for_nid() depends on memblock_set_node() having > already happened" Will add a comment, sure. > ...at least that context was not part of the diff so took me second to > figure out how this works. >
On 01.08.24 08:08, Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > Instead of looping over numa_meminfo array to detect node's start and > end addresses use get_pfn_range_for_init(). > > This is shorter and make it easier to lift numa_memblks to generic code. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> > Tested-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> # for x86_64 and arm64 > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 13 +++---------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index edfc38803779..cfe7e5477cf8 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -521,17 +521,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > /* Finally register nodes. */ > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { > - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); > - u64 end = 0; > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; > > - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { > - if (nid != mi->blk[i].nid) > - continue; > - start = min(mi->blk[i].start, start); > - end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); > - } > - > - if (start >= end) > + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) > continue; > > alloc_node_data(nid); Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index edfc38803779..cfe7e5477cf8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -521,17 +521,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) /* Finally register nodes. */ for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); - u64 end = 0; + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { - if (nid != mi->blk[i].nid) - continue; - start = min(mi->blk[i].start, start); - end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); - } - - if (start >= end) + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) continue; alloc_node_data(nid);