linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted interleave

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

Message-ID: <20250403042638.1127-1-rakie.kim@sk.com>
Date: Thu,  3 Apr 2025 13:26:14 +0900
From: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
Cc: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	joshua.hahnjy@...il.com,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com,
	david@...hat.com,
	Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
	kernel_team@...ynix.com,
	honggyu.kim@...com,
	yunjeong.mun@...com,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted interleave

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:36:24 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:41:57PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, this callback will be called whenever {online,offline}_pages succeeds, but
> > status_change_nid will be != NUMA_NO_NODE IFF the node state changes.
> > And you already have the check
> > 
> >  if (nid < 0)
> >     goto out
> > 
> > at the beginning, which means that all {offline,online}_pages operation that
> > do not carry a numa node state change will be filtered out there.
> > 
> > Makes sense, or am I missing something?
> >
> 
> Ah, you're quite right.  That was difficult to see on the surface, so
> the check in fact superfluous.  No need for an extra version, can just
> add a patch to squash and drop it.
> 
> ~Gregory

To Gregory and Oscar

As Oscar correctly pointed out, the check for
'if (!node_state(nid, N_MEMORY))' is unnecessary and should be removed.

Additionally, there are other suggestions from Dan Williams that should
be applied as well:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/67ed66ef7c070_9dac294e0@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch/

I will incorporate all of these improvements and submit a new version (v6).

Rakie