Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 1 Jun 2022 07:00:41 -0700 | From | Davidlohr Bueso <> | 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@stgolabs.net> writes: >> >> > We have helpers for a reason. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.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
|  |