On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:00 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:43 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But snp_safe_alloc_page() should again flow alloc_pages() and pass numa_node_id(), > > > not NUMA_NO_NODE. > > > > alloc_pages_node() will use numa_node_id() if you pass in NUMA_NO_NODE. > > The code uses numa_mem_id() > > if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) > nid = numa_mem_id(); > > which is presumably the exact same thing as numa_node_id() on x86. But I don't > want to have to think that hard :-) Uh yes, I missed numa_node_id() vs numa_mem_id(). Anyway, using NUMA_NO_NODE with alloc_pages_node() is intended as an abstraction such that you don't need to think about it :P > > In other words, all I'm saying is that if we want to mirror alloc_pages() and > alloc_pages_node(), then we should mirror them exactly. It's different though, these functions are core MM APIs used by the entire kernel. snp_safe_alloc_page() is just a helper here wrapping those core MM APIs rather than mirroring them. In this case snp_safe_alloc_page() would wrap snp_safe_alloc_page_node() which would wrap alloc_pages_node(). So it should use alloc_pages_node() as intended: pass in a node id or NUMA_NO_NODE if you just want the closest node. Just my 2c, not that it will make a difference in practice.
