| Message ID | 20240716111346.3676969-16-rppt@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: introduce numa_memblks | expand |
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:44 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > Introduce numa_memblks_init() and move some code around to avoid several > global variables in numa_memblks. Hi Mike, Adding the effectively always on memblock_force_top_down deserves a comment on why. I assume because you are going to do something with it later? There also seems to be more going on in here such as the change to get_pfn_range_for_nid() Perhaps break this up so each change can have an explanation. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 53 ++++--------------------- > include/linux/numa_memblks.h | 9 +---- > mm/numa_memblks.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > index 3848e68d771a..16bc703c9272 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -115,30 +115,19 @@ void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) > pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %u nodes\n", nr_node_ids); > } > > -static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > +static int __init numa_register_nodes(void) > { > - int i, nid, err; > - > - err = numa_register_meminfo(mi); > - if (err) > - return err; > + int nid; > > if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(SZ_1M)) > return -EINVAL; > > /* Finally register nodes. */ > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { > - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); > - u64 end = 0; > - > - 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); > - } > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; > > - if (start >= end) > + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); It's not immediately obvious to me that this code is equivalent so I'd prefer it in a separate patch with some description of why it is a valid change. > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) > continue; > > alloc_node_data(nid); > @@ -178,39 +167,11 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) > for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++) > set_apicid_to_node(i, NUMA_NO_NODE); > > - nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed); > - nodes_clear(node_possible_map); > - nodes_clear(node_online_map); > - memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); > - WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, > - NUMA_NO_NODE)); > - WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, > - NUMA_NO_NODE)); > - /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ > - WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); > - numa_reset_distance(); > - > - ret = init_func(); > - if (ret < 0) > - return ret; > - > - /* > - * We reset memblock back to the top-down direction > - * here because if we configured ACPI_NUMA, we have > - * parsed SRAT in init_func(). It is ok to have the > - * reset here even if we did't configure ACPI_NUMA > - * or acpi numa init fails and fallbacks to dummy > - * numa init. > - */ > - memblock_set_bottom_up(false); > - > - ret = numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); > + ret = numa_memblks_init(init_func, /* memblock_force_top_down */ true); The comment in parameter list seems unnecessary. Maybe add a comment above the call instead if need to call that out? > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > - numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); > - > - ret = numa_register_memblks(&numa_meminfo); > + ret = numa_register_nodes(); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > diff --git a/mm/numa_memblks.c b/mm/numa_memblks.c > index e0039549aaac..640f3a3ce0ee 100644 > --- a/mm/numa_memblks.c > +++ b/mm/numa_memblks.c > @@ -7,13 +7,27 @@ > #include <linux/numa.h> > #include <linux/numa_memblks.h> > > +/* > + * Set nodes, which have memory in @mi, in *@nodemask. > + */ > +static void __init numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(nodemask_t *nodemask, > + const struct numa_meminfo *mi) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) > + if (mi->blk[i].start != mi->blk[i].end && > + mi->blk[i].nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) > + node_set(mi->blk[i].nid, *nodemask); > +} The code move doesn't have an obvious purpose. Maybe call that out in the patch description if it is needed for a future patch. Or do it in two goes so first just adds the static, 2nd shuffles the code. > > /** > * numa_reset_distance - Reset NUMA distance table > @@ -287,20 +301,6 @@ int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > return 0; > } > > -/* > - * Set nodes, which have memory in @mi, in *@nodemask. > - */ > -void __init numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(nodemask_t *nodemask, > - const struct numa_meminfo *mi) > -{ > - int i; > - > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) > - if (mi->blk[i].start != mi->blk[i].end && > - mi->blk[i].nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) > - node_set(mi->blk[i].nid, *nodemask); > -} > - > /* > * Mark all currently memblock-reserved physical memory (which covers the > * kernel's own memory ranges) as hot-unswappable. > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void) > } > } > > -int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > +static int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > { > int i; > > @@ -412,6 +412,47 @@ int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > return 0; > } > > +int __init numa_memblks_init(int (*init_func)(void), > + bool memblock_force_top_down) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed); > + nodes_clear(node_possible_map); > + nodes_clear(node_online_map); > + memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); > + WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, > + NUMA_NO_NODE)); > + WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, > + NUMA_NO_NODE)); > + /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ > + WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); > + numa_reset_distance(); > + > + ret = init_func(); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + > + /* > + * We reset memblock back to the top-down direction > + * here because if we configured ACPI_NUMA, we have > + * parsed SRAT in init_func(). It is ok to have the > + * reset here even if we did't configure ACPI_NUMA > + * or acpi numa init fails and fallbacks to dummy > + * numa init. > + */ > + if (memblock_force_top_down) > + memblock_set_bottom_up(false); > + > + ret = numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + > + numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); > + > + return numa_register_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); > +} > + > static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) > { > const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a;
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 07:07:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:44 +0300 > Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > > > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > > > Introduce numa_memblks_init() and move some code around to avoid several > > global variables in numa_memblks. > > Hi Mike, > > Adding the effectively always on memblock_force_top_down > deserves a comment on why. I assume because you are going to do > something with it later? Yes, arch_numa sets it to false. I'll add a note in the changelog. > There also seems to be more going on in here such as the change to > get_pfn_range_for_nid() Perhaps break this up so each > change can have an explanation. Ok. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> > > --- > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 53 ++++--------------------- > > include/linux/numa_memblks.h | 9 +---- > > mm/numa_memblks.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > index 3848e68d771a..16bc703c9272 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > @@ -115,30 +115,19 @@ void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) > > pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %u nodes\n", nr_node_ids); > > } > > > > -static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > +static int __init numa_register_nodes(void) > > { > > - int i, nid, err; > > - > > - err = numa_register_meminfo(mi); > > - if (err) > > - return err; > > + int nid; > > > > if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(SZ_1M)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > /* Finally register nodes. */ > > for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { > > - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); > > - u64 end = 0; > > - > > - 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); > > - } > > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; > > > > - if (start >= end) > > + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); > > It's not immediately obvious to me that this code is equivalent so I'd > prefer it in a separate patch with some description of why > it is a valid change. Will do. > > + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) > > continue; > > > > alloc_node_data(nid); > > @@ -178,39 +167,11 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) > > for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++) > > set_apicid_to_node(i, NUMA_NO_NODE); > > > > - nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed); > > - nodes_clear(node_possible_map); > > - nodes_clear(node_online_map); > > - memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); > > - WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, > > - NUMA_NO_NODE)); > > - WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, > > - NUMA_NO_NODE)); > > - /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ > > - WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); > > - numa_reset_distance(); > > - > > - ret = init_func(); > > - if (ret < 0) > > - return ret; > > - > > - /* > > - * We reset memblock back to the top-down direction > > - * here because if we configured ACPI_NUMA, we have > > - * parsed SRAT in init_func(). It is ok to have the > > - * reset here even if we did't configure ACPI_NUMA > > - * or acpi numa init fails and fallbacks to dummy > > - * numa init. > > - */ > > - memblock_set_bottom_up(false); > > - > > - ret = numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); > > + ret = numa_memblks_init(init_func, /* memblock_force_top_down */ true); > The comment in parameter list seems unnecessary. > Maybe add a comment above the call instead if need to call that out? I'll drop it for now. > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > - numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); > > - > > - ret = numa_register_memblks(&numa_meminfo); > > + ret = numa_register_nodes(); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > > diff --git a/mm/numa_memblks.c b/mm/numa_memblks.c > > index e0039549aaac..640f3a3ce0ee 100644 > > --- a/mm/numa_memblks.c > > +++ b/mm/numa_memblks.c > > @@ -7,13 +7,27 @@ > > #include <linux/numa.h> > > #include <linux/numa_memblks.h> > > > > > +/* > > + * Set nodes, which have memory in @mi, in *@nodemask. > > + */ > > +static void __init numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(nodemask_t *nodemask, > > + const struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) > > + if (mi->blk[i].start != mi->blk[i].end && > > + mi->blk[i].nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) > > + node_set(mi->blk[i].nid, *nodemask); > > +} > > The code move doesn't have an obvious purpose. Maybe call that > out in the patch description if it is needed for a future patch. > Or do it in two goes so first just adds the static, 2nd shuffles > the code. Before the move numa_nodemask_from_meminfo() was global so it was ok to define it after its callers. I'll split this into a separate commit.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 07:07:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:44 +0300 > Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > > > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > > > Introduce numa_memblks_init() and move some code around to avoid several > > global variables in numa_memblks. > > Hi Mike, > > Adding the effectively always on memblock_force_top_down > deserves a comment on why. I assume because you are going to do > something with it later? > > There also seems to be more going on in here such as the change to > get_pfn_range_for_nid() Perhaps break this up so each > change can have an explanation. I'll split this into several commits.
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index 3848e68d771a..16bc703c9272 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -115,30 +115,19 @@ void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %u nodes\n", nr_node_ids); } -static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) +static int __init numa_register_nodes(void) { - int i, nid, err; - - err = numa_register_meminfo(mi); - if (err) - return err; + int nid; if (!memblock_validate_numa_coverage(SZ_1M)) return -EINVAL; /* Finally register nodes. */ for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); - u64 end = 0; - - 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); - } + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; - if (start >= end) + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn) continue; alloc_node_data(nid); @@ -178,39 +167,11 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++) set_apicid_to_node(i, NUMA_NO_NODE); - nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed); - nodes_clear(node_possible_map); - nodes_clear(node_online_map); - memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); - WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, - NUMA_NO_NODE)); - WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, - NUMA_NO_NODE)); - /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ - WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); - numa_reset_distance(); - - ret = init_func(); - if (ret < 0) - return ret; - - /* - * We reset memblock back to the top-down direction - * here because if we configured ACPI_NUMA, we have - * parsed SRAT in init_func(). It is ok to have the - * reset here even if we did't configure ACPI_NUMA - * or acpi numa init fails and fallbacks to dummy - * numa init. - */ - memblock_set_bottom_up(false); - - ret = numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); + ret = numa_memblks_init(init_func, /* memblock_force_top_down */ true); if (ret < 0) return ret; - numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); - - ret = numa_register_memblks(&numa_meminfo); + ret = numa_register_nodes(); if (ret < 0) return ret; diff --git a/include/linux/numa_memblks.h b/include/linux/numa_memblks.h index f81f98678074..5c6e12ad0b7a 100644 --- a/include/linux/numa_memblks.h +++ b/include/linux/numa_memblks.h @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ #define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2) -extern int numa_distance_cnt; void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance); void __init numa_reset_distance(void); @@ -22,17 +21,13 @@ struct numa_meminfo { struct numa_memblk blk[NR_NODE_MEMBLKS]; }; -extern struct numa_meminfo numa_meminfo __initdata_or_meminfo; -extern struct numa_meminfo numa_reserved_meminfo __initdata_or_meminfo; - int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end); void __init numa_remove_memblk_from(int idx, struct numa_meminfo *mi); int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi); -int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi); -void __init numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(nodemask_t *nodemask, - const struct numa_meminfo *mi); +int __init numa_memblks_init(int (*init_func)(void), + bool memblock_force_top_down); #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU int numa_emu_cmdline(char *str); diff --git a/mm/numa_memblks.c b/mm/numa_memblks.c index e0039549aaac..640f3a3ce0ee 100644 --- a/mm/numa_memblks.c +++ b/mm/numa_memblks.c @@ -7,13 +7,27 @@ #include <linux/numa.h> #include <linux/numa_memblks.h> -int numa_distance_cnt; +static int numa_distance_cnt; static u8 *numa_distance; nodemask_t numa_nodes_parsed __initdata; -struct numa_meminfo numa_meminfo __initdata_or_meminfo; -struct numa_meminfo numa_reserved_meminfo __initdata_or_meminfo; +static struct numa_meminfo numa_meminfo __initdata_or_meminfo; +static struct numa_meminfo numa_reserved_meminfo __initdata_or_meminfo; + +/* + * Set nodes, which have memory in @mi, in *@nodemask. + */ +static void __init numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(nodemask_t *nodemask, + const struct numa_meminfo *mi) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) + if (mi->blk[i].start != mi->blk[i].end && + mi->blk[i].nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) + node_set(mi->blk[i].nid, *nodemask); +} /** * numa_reset_distance - Reset NUMA distance table @@ -287,20 +301,6 @@ int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) return 0; } -/* - * Set nodes, which have memory in @mi, in *@nodemask. - */ -void __init numa_nodemask_from_meminfo(nodemask_t *nodemask, - const struct numa_meminfo *mi) -{ - int i; - - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) - if (mi->blk[i].start != mi->blk[i].end && - mi->blk[i].nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) - node_set(mi->blk[i].nid, *nodemask); -} - /* * Mark all currently memblock-reserved physical memory (which covers the * kernel's own memory ranges) as hot-unswappable. @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void) } } -int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) +static int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) { int i; @@ -412,6 +412,47 @@ int __init numa_register_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi) return 0; } +int __init numa_memblks_init(int (*init_func)(void), + bool memblock_force_top_down) +{ + int ret; + + nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed); + nodes_clear(node_possible_map); + nodes_clear(node_online_map); + memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); + WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, + NUMA_NO_NODE)); + WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, + NUMA_NO_NODE)); + /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ + WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); + numa_reset_distance(); + + ret = init_func(); + if (ret < 0) + return ret; + + /* + * We reset memblock back to the top-down direction + * here because if we configured ACPI_NUMA, we have + * parsed SRAT in init_func(). It is ok to have the + * reset here even if we did't configure ACPI_NUMA + * or acpi numa init fails and fallbacks to dummy + * numa init. + */ + if (memblock_force_top_down) + memblock_set_bottom_up(false); + + ret = numa_cleanup_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); + if (ret < 0) + return ret; + + numa_emulation(&numa_meminfo, numa_distance_cnt); + + return numa_register_meminfo(&numa_meminfo); +} + static int __init cmp_memblk(const void *a, const void *b) { const struct numa_memblk *ma = *(const struct numa_memblk **)a;