Message-ID: <6e4833165a6fc0dc94e9f2fe3f481be7233a86a5@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:17:48 +0000
From: "Ho-Ren Chuang" <horen.chuang@...ux.dev>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, "Gregory Price"
 <gourry.memverge@...il.com>, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, mhocko@...e.com,
 tj@...nel.org, john@...alactic.com, "Eishan Mirakhur"
 <emirakhur@...ron.com>, "Vinicius Tavares Petrucci"
 <vtavarespetr@...ron.com>, "Ravis OpenSrc" <Ravis.OpenSrc@...ron.com>,
 "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>, "Srinivasulu Thanneeru"
 <sthanneeru@...ron.com>, "SeongJae Park" <sj@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. 
 Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>, "Andrew 
 Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Dave Jiang" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
 "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, "Ho-Ren (Jack)  Chuang"
 <horenc@...edu>, "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horenchuang@...edance.com>,
 "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horenchuang@...il.com>,
 linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] memory tier: consolidate the initialization of memory
 tiers

June 25, 2024 at 1:46 AM, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:

Hi Huang, Ying,

I'm working on the v2 according to Andrew's and your feedback.

Thank you for your confirmation.

> 
> "Ho-Ren Chuang" <horen.chuang@...ux.dev> writes:
> 
> > 
> > June 24, 2024 at 1:27 AM, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> >  Hi Huang, Ying,
> > 
> >  Thanks for your feedback. Replies inlined.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi, Jack,
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  Thanks for patch!
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@...ux.dev> writes:
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, because set_node_memory_tier()
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > to iterate through.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init().
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@...edance.com>
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> > > 
> > 
> >  Thank you for your help with the input. Will add it in the v2.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > ---
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > Hi all,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > The earlier discussion with Jonathan and Ying is listed here:
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240405150244.00004b49@Huawei.com/
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > If we want to put these two initializations together, they must be placed
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > together in the later function. Because only at that time, the HMAT information
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > will be ready, adist between nodes can be calculated, and memory tiering can be
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > established based on the adist. So we position the initialization at
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > memory_tier_init() to the memory_tier_late_init() call.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > Moreover, it's natural to keep memory_tier initialization in drivers at
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > device_initcall() level.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > This patchset is based on commits cf93be18fa1b and a72a30af550c:
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > [0/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-1-horenchuang@bytedance.com
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-2-horenchuang@bytedance.com
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-3-horenchuang@bytedance.com
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  It appears that you should switch the parts before and after "---".
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  This is the real patch description, as pointed out by Andrew too.
> > > 
> > 
> >  Thank you for the suggestion. I plan to write the real patch description in
> > 
> >  the cover letter in the next version to avoid any misunderstanding.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > Thanks,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 4 ++-
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 6 ++++
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > mm/memory-tiers.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > index 2c8ccc91ebe6..31a77a3324a8 100644
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -939,11 +939,13 @@ static int hmat_set_default_dram_perf(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > int nid, pxm;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > struct memory_target *target;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > struct access_coordinate *attrs;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + nodemask_t default_dram_nodes;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > if (!default_dram_type)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > return -EIO;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + default_dram_nodes = mt_get_default_dram_nodemask();
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_nodes) {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  We don't need 'default_dram_type' in the function actually. It appears
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  that we can hide it in memory-tiers.c now?
> > > 
> > 
> >  Do you mean to remove the "if (!default_dram_type) return -EIO;" here?
> > 
> >  If so, I agree, it's not used anymore here.
> > 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > pxm = node_to_pxm(nid);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > target = find_mem_target(pxm);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > if (!target)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > index 0d70788558f4..1567db7bd40e 100644
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int mt_perf_to_adistance(struct access_coordinate *perf, int *adist);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > struct list_head *memory_types);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > int next_demotion_node(int node);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > void node_get_allowed_targets(pg_data_t *pgdat, nodemask_t *targets);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -149,5 +150,10 @@ static inline struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > static inline void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > }
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +static inline nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +{
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + return NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +}
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > #endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > index 6632102bd5c9..7d4b7f53dd8f 100644
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > static LIST_HEAD(default_memory_types);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES];
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +static nodemask_t default_dram_nodes __initdata = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > static const struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > .name = "memory_tiering",
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -125,6 +126,11 @@ static inline struct memory_tier *to_memory_tier(struct device *device)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > return container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > }
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +nodemask_t __init mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +{
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + return default_dram_nodes;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +}
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  Why not just expose 'default_dram_nodes'?
> > > 
> > 
> >  I was thinking encapsulating it should be more systematic/structural.
> > 
> >  Do you think exposing it is better?
> > 
> 
> It doesn't help much to encapsulate with one line function. So, IMO,
> 
> it's better just to expose it.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > static __always_inline nodemask_t get_memtier_nodemask(struct memory_tier *memtier)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -671,27 +677,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mt_put_memory_types);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > * This is invoked via `late_initcall()` to initialize memory tiers for
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * CPU-less memory nodes after driver initialization, which is
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * expected to provide `adistance` algorithms.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * memory nodes, both with and without CPUs. After the initialization of
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * firmware and devices, adistance algorithms are expected to be provided.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > static int __init memory_tier_late_init(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > int nid;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * Look at all the existing and uninitialized N_MEMORY nodes and
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * add them to default memory tier or to a tier if we already have
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * memory types assigned.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  During the function run, the node may change between N_MEMORY and
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  !N_MEMORY in theory. So, it appears necessary to get/put_online_mems()
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  in the function?
> > > 
> > 
> >  Thanks for the catch. I will add get/put_online_mems().
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > - /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * between `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * potentially bringing online memory nodes and
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * configuring memory tiers. Exclude them here.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - continue;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU))
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  Why? I think that we should "continue" here even if node_state(nid,
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  N_CPU).
> > > 
> > 
> >  Do you mean no matter node_state(nid, N_CPU) or !node_state(nid, N_CPU),
> > 
> >  as long as if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) is true, we
> > 
> >  should "continue"?
> > 
> >  I think you are right, at this moment, we only care if the
> > 
> >  node_memory_types[nid].memtype is set or not.
> > 
> >  If not, we should set it here. If yes, we should continue.
> > 
> >  If my understanding is correct, I will fix it in the v2.
> > 
> 
> Yes. That's my opinion too.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > + /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * Some device drivers may have initialized
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * memory tiers, potentially bringing memory nodes
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * online and configuring memory tiers.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * Exclude them here.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + continue;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - set_node_memory_tier(nid);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + memtier = set_node_memory_tier(nid);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + if (IS_ERR(memtier))
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + break;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > }
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > -
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > establish_demotion_targets();
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > return 0;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -876,7 +893,6 @@ static int __meminit memtier_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > int ret, node;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - struct memory_tier *memtier;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > ret = subsys_virtual_register(&memory_tier_subsys, NULL);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > if (ret)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -887,7 +903,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > WARN_ON(!node_demotion);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > #endif
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > +
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > * than default DRAM tier.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > @@ -898,28 +915,11 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n", __func__);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * Look at all the existing N_MEMORY nodes and add them to
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * default memory tier or to a tier if we already have memory
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * types assigned.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + * Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  For one line comments, we can use
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  /* Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. */
> > > 
> > 
> >  Thank you for the guidance. Will fix in the v2.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > - for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - if (!node_state(node, N_CPU))
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * Defer memory tier initialization on
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * after firmware and devices are initialized.
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - continue;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > -
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - if (IS_ERR(memtier))
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - /*
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - */
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - break;
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - }
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - establish_demotion_targets();
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > - mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY)
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + if (node_state(node, N_CPU))
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > + node_set(node, default_dram_nodes);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  Why not use
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  nodes_andnot(default_dram_nodes, node_states[N_MEMORY], node_states[N_CPU]);
> > > 
> > 
> >  Instead of using nodes_andnot(), should nodes_and() be correct? because we wanna
> > 
> >  record the nodes that are both N_MEMORY and N_CPU.
> > 
> 
> Oh, Yes, you are right.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >  > hotplug_memory_notifier(memtier_hotplug_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRI);
> > > 
> > >  > 
> > > 
> > >  > return 0;
> > > 
> > >  >
> > >
> > 
> 
> --
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Huang, Ying
>

--
Best Regards,
Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang

Powered by blists - more mailing lists