"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/26/22 9:33 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> +static struct memory_tier *__node_get_memory_tier(int node)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
>>>>> + if (node_isset(node, memtier->nodelist))
>>>>> + return memtier;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void init_node_memory_tier(int node)
>>>>
>>>> set_node_memory_tier()?
>>>
>>> That was done based on feedback from Alistair
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/87h73iapg1.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int perf_level;
>>>>> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + memtier = __node_get_memory_tier(node);
>>>>> + if (!memtier) {
>>>>> + perf_level = node_devices[node]->perf_level;
>>>>> + memtier = find_create_memory_tier(perf_level);
>>>>> + node_set(node, memtier->nodelist);
>>>>> + }
>>
>> It's related to Alistair's comments too. When will memtier != NULL
>> here? We may need just VM_WARN_ON() here?
>
> When the platform driver sets memory tier directly. With the old code
> it can happen when dax/kmem register a node to a memory tier. With
> memory_type proposal this can happen if the node is part of memory
> type that is already added to a memory tier.
Let's look at what it looks like with memory_type in place.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
>>
>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
[snip]
