On Tue, 2022-05-31 at 17:20 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > We have helpers for a reason. > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) > > * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations > > * as wide as possible. > > */ > > - if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > > + if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > > return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN; > > > > > > if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags)) > > > Are we really looking at the top tier in a tiered memory hierarchy here? > The comment seems to suggest we are looking at local NUMA node? The code change itself is correct. But it is an implementation details that node_is_toptier() == node_state(, N_CPU). And after we supporting more memory tiers (like GPU, HBM), we will change the implementation of node_is_toptier() soon. So I think that it's better to keep the original code. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
