Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 09:07:20AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 3/8/22 02:27, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> > @@ -2043,7 +2044,12 @@ static void __init init_cpu_node_state(void)
>> > static int vmstat_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
>> > {
>> > refresh_zone_stat_thresholds();
>> > - node_set_state(cpu_to_node(cpu), N_CPU);
>> > +
>> > + if (!node_state(cpu_to_node(cpu), N_CPU)) {
>> > + node_set_state(cpu_to_node(cpu), N_CPU);
>> > + set_migration_target_nodes();
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -2066,6 +2072,8 @@ static int vmstat_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
>> > return 0;
>> >
>> > node_clear_state(node, N_CPU);
>> > + set_migration_target_nodes();
>> > +
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>>
>> Yeah, those callbacks do look like they're reinventing the wheel. This
>> is a much more direct way of doing it.
>
> Then let me play a bit more with it and I can cook a patch unless
> someone feels strong against it.
This looks good to me, Thanks!
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
