On 08.04.22 04:59, Wei Yang wrote:
> Since we just increase a constance of 1 to node penalty, it is not
> necessary to multiply MAX_NODE_LOAD for preference.
>
> This patch also remove the definition.
>
> [vbabka@xxxxxxx: suggests]
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> CC: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 86b6573fbeb5..ca6a127bbc26 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -6170,7 +6170,6 @@ int numa_zonelist_order_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> }
>
>
> -#define MAX_NODE_LOAD (nr_online_nodes)
> static int node_load[MAX_NUMNODES];
>
> /**
> @@ -6217,7 +6216,7 @@ int find_next_best_node(int node, nodemask_t *used_node_mask)
> val += PENALTY_FOR_NODE_WITH_CPUS;
>
> /* Slight preference for less loaded node */
> - val *= (MAX_NODE_LOAD*MAX_NUMNODES);
> + val *= MAX_NUMNODES;
> val += node_load[n];
>
> if (val < min_val) {
I feel like this should be squashed into the previous patch. It has the
same effect of making this code independent of nr_online_nodes. And I
had to scratch my head a couple of times in patch #1 why the change in
patch #1 is fine with thus remaining in place.
Having that said, I consider this code highly unnecessary
over-complicated at first sight. Removing some of the magic most
certainly is very welcome.
This semantics of the global variable node_load[] remains mostly
mysterious for me.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
