On 19.07.24 17:51, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:07:35 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- * Allocate node data. Try node-local memory and then any node.
- * Never allocate in DMA zone.
- */
- nd_pa = memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
- if (!nd_pa) {
- pr_err("Cannot find %zu bytes in any node (initial node: %d)\n",
- nd_size, nid);
- return;
- }
- nd = __va(nd_pa);
-
- /* report and initialize */
- printk(KERN_INFO "NODE_DATA(%d) allocated [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n", nid,
- nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
- tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
- if (tnid != nid)
- printk(KERN_INFO " NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
-
- node_data[nid] = nd;
- memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
-
- node_set_online(nid);
-}
-
/**
* numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
* @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
@@ -571,6 +538,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
continue;
alloc_node_data(nid);
+ node_set_online(nid);
}
I can spot that we only remove a single node_set_online() call from x86.
What about all the other architectures? Will there be any change in behavior
for them? Or do we simply set the nodes online later once more?
On x86 node_set_online() was a part of alloc_node_data() and I moved it
outside so it's called right after alloc_node_data(). On other
architectures the allocation didn't include that call, so there should be
no difference there.
But won't their arch code try setting the nodes online at a later stage?
And I think, some architectures only set nodes online conditionally
(see most other node_set_online() calls).
Sorry if I'm confused here, but with now unconditional node_set_online(), won't
we change the behavior of other architectures?
This is moving x86 code to x86 code, not a generic location
so how would that affect anyone else? Their onlining should be same as
before.
Yes, see my reply to Mike.
The node onlining difference are a pain (I recall that fun from adding
generic initiators) as different ordering on x86 and arm64 at least.
That's part of the reason I was confused, because I remember some nasty
inconsistency.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
