On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 10:09:48AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>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.
>
So the suggestion is a v3 with #1 and #2 squashed?
>--
>Thanks,
>
>David / dhildenb
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
