linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm/vmscan: use node_is_toptier helper in node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220601140041.wjszzmkswy4dkn4n@offworld>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 07:00:41 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, mhocko@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        yosryahmed@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, gthelen@...gle.com,
        a.manzanares@...sung.com, heekwon.p@...sung.com,
        gim.jongmin@...sung.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm/vmscan: use node_is_toptier helper in node_reclaim

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022, Ying Huang wrote:

>On Tue, 2022-05-31 at 17:20 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> writes:
>>
>> > We have helpers for a reason.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
>> > ---
>> >  mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644
>> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>> >  	 * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations
>> >  	 * as wide as possible.
>> >  	 */
>> > -	if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id())
>> > +	if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id())
>> >  		return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN;
>> >
>> >
>> >  	if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags))
>>
>>
>> Are we really looking at the top tier in a tiered memory hierarchy here?
>> The comment seems to suggest we are looking at local NUMA node?
>
>The code change itself is correct.  But it is an implementation details
>that node_is_toptier() == node_state(, N_CPU).  And after we supporting
>more memory tiers (like GPU, HBM), we will change the implementation of
>node_is_toptier() soon.   So I think that it's better to keep the
>original code.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Davidlohr