On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 7:20 PM Justin He <Justin.He@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Michal and David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 7:55 PM > > To: Justin He <Justin.He@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@xxxxxxx>; Will Deacon > > <will@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; Vishal Verma > > <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>; Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>; Andrew > > Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > > Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>; Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@xxxxxxxxx>; linux- > > arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid > > as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > > > On Tue 07-07-20 13:59:15, Jia He wrote: > > > This exports memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() for module driver to use. > > > > > > memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() is a fallback option to get the nid in case > > > NUMA_NO_NID is detected. > > > > > > Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 5 +++-- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > > > index aafcee3e3f7e..7eeb31740248 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > > > @@ -464,10 +464,11 @@ void __init arm64_numa_init(void) > > > > > > /* > > > * We hope that we will be hotplugging memory on nodes we already know > > about, > > > - * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds and we never fall back to this... > > > + * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds. But when SRAT is not present, > > the node > > > + * id may be probed as NUMA_NO_NODE by acpi, Here provide a fallback > > option. > > > */ > > > int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr) > > > { > > > - pr_warn("Unknown node for memory at 0x%llx, assuming node 0\n", > > addr); > > > return 0; > > > } > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); > > > > Does it make sense to export a noop function? Wouldn't make more sense > > to simply make it static inline somewhere in a header? I haven't checked > > whether there is an easy way to do that sanely bu this just hit my eyes. > > Okay, I can make a change in memory_hotplug.h, sth like: > --- a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h > +++ b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h > @@ -149,13 +149,13 @@ int add_pages(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, > struct mhp_params *params); > #endif /* ARCH_HAS_ADD_PAGES */ > > -#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > -extern int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); > -#else > +#if !defined(CONFIG_NUMA) || !defined(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid) > static inline int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) > { > return 0; > } > +#else > +extern int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); > #endif > > And then check the memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() helper on all arches, > if it is noop(return 0), I can simply remove it. > if it is not noop, after the helper, > #define memory_add_physaddr_to_nid > > What do you think of this proposal? Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does: int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr) { unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr); int nid; for_each_online_node(nid) { get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn) return nid; } return NUMA_NO_NODE; }