Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:36:56 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] x86/numa: Provide a range-to-target_node lookup facility |
| |
* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> The DEV_DAX_KMEM facility is a generic mechanism to allow device-dax > instances, fronting performance-differentiated-memory like pmem, to be > added to the System RAM pool. The numa node for that hot-added memory is > derived from the device-dax instance's 'target_node' attribute. > > Recall that the 'target_node' is the ACPI-PXM-to-node translation for > memory when it comes online whereas the 'numa_node' attribute of the > device represents the closest online cpu node. > > Presently useful target_node information from the ACPI SRAT is discarded > with the expectation that "Reserved" memory will never be onlined. Now, > DEV_DAX_KMEM violates that assumption, there is a need to retain the > translation. Move, rather than discard, numa_memblk data to a secondary > array that memory_add_physaddr_to_target_node() may consider at a later > point in time. > > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> > Cc: <x86@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > include/linux/numa.h | 8 +++++- > mm/mempolicy.c | 5 ++++ > 3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index 5289d9d6799a..f2c8fca36f28 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly; > EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data); > > static struct numa_meminfo numa_meminfo __initdata_numa; > +static struct numa_meminfo numa_reserved_meminfo __initdata_numa; > > static int numa_distance_cnt; > static u8 *numa_distance; > @@ -164,6 +165,26 @@ void __init numa_remove_memblk_from(int idx, struct numa_meminfo *mi) > (mi->nr_blks - idx) * sizeof(mi->blk[0])); > } > > +/** > + * numa_move_memblk - Move one numa_memblk from one numa_meminfo to another > + * @dst: numa_meminfo to move block to > + * @idx: Index of memblk to remove > + * @src: numa_meminfo to remove memblk from > + * > + * If @dst is non-NULL add it at the @dst->nr_blks index and increment > + * @dst->nr_blks, then remove it from @src. > + */ > +static void __init numa_move_memblk(struct numa_meminfo *dst, int idx, > + struct numa_meminfo *src)
Nit, this is obviously not how we format function definitions if checkpatch complains about the col80 limit.
> +{ > + if (dst) { > + memcpy(&dst->blk[dst->nr_blks], &src->blk[idx], > + sizeof(struct numa_memblk));
This linebreak is actually unnecessary ...
Thanks,
Ingo
| |