[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRUypQzcovGikrV0@fedora>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 09:21:41 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>,
Uday Shankar <ushankar@...estorage.com>,
Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 01/27] kfifo: add kfifo_alloc_node() helper for NUMA
awareness
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 17:37:39 +0800 Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Add __kfifo_alloc_node() by refactoring and reusing __kfifo_alloc(),
> > and define kfifo_alloc_node() macro to support NUMA-aware memory
> > allocation.
> >
> > The new __kfifo_alloc_node() function accepts a NUMA node parameter
> > and uses kmalloc_array_node() instead of kmalloc_array() for
> > node-specific allocation. The existing __kfifo_alloc() now calls
> > __kfifo_alloc_node() with NUMA_NO_NODE to maintain backward
> > compatibility.
> >
> > This enables users to allocate kfifo buffers on specific NUMA nodes,
> > which is important for performance in NUMA systems where the kfifo
> > will be primarily accessed by threads running on specific nodes.
>
> I was about to ask "please don't add infrastructure without users", but
> I see a "01/27" there. I wander over to lkml but I can't find 02-27
> there either. Maybe something went wrong.
It can be found in lore:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251112093808.2134129-1-ming.lei@redhat.com/
>
> I prefer to be cc'ed on the entire series, please.
OK.
>
> > --- a/include/linux/kfifo.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kfifo.h
> > @@ -369,6 +369,30 @@ __kfifo_int_must_check_helper( \
> > }) \
> > )
> >
> > +/**
> > + * kfifo_alloc_node - dynamically allocates a new fifo buffer on a NUMA node
> > + * @fifo: pointer to the fifo
> > + * @size: the number of elements in the fifo, this must be a power of 2
> > + * @gfp_mask: get_free_pages mask, passed to kmalloc()
> > + * @node: NUMA node to allocate memory on
> > + *
> > + * This macro dynamically allocates a new fifo buffer with NUMA node awareness.
> > + *
> > + * The number of elements will be rounded-up to a power of 2.
> > + * The fifo will be release with kfifo_free().
> > + * Return 0 if no error, otherwise an error code.
> > + */
> > +#define kfifo_alloc_node(fifo, size, gfp_mask, node) \
> > +__kfifo_int_must_check_helper( \
> > +({ \
> > + typeof((fifo) + 1) __tmp = (fifo); \
> > + struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> > + __is_kfifo_ptr(__tmp) ? \
> > + __kfifo_alloc_node(__kfifo, size, sizeof(*__tmp->type), gfp_mask, node) : \
> > + -EINVAL; \
> > +}) \
> > +)
>
> Well this is an eyesore. Do we really need it? It seems to be here so
> we can check for a programming bug? Well, don't add programming bugs!
>
> I'm actually not enjoying the existence of __is_kfifo_ptr() at all.
> What is it all doing? It's a FIFO for heck's sake, why is this so hard.
It is basically a clone of existing kfifo_alloc().
Do we need to clean kfifo_alloc() first? Otherwise I'd keep the same
pattern with existing definitions.
>
> > @@ -902,6 +926,9 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> > extern int __kfifo_alloc(struct __kfifo *fifo, unsigned int size,
> > size_t esize, gfp_t gfp_mask);
> >
> > +extern int __kfifo_alloc_node(struct __kfifo *fifo, unsigned int size,
> > + size_t esize, gfp_t gfp_mask, int node);
> > +
>
> Nit: please align things like this:
>
> extern int __kfifo_alloc_node(struct __kfifo *fifo, unsigned int size,
> size_t esize, gfp_t gfp_mask, int node);
OK.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists