"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> + */
....
>> +int next_demotion_node(int node)
>> +{
>> + struct demotion_nodes *nd;
>> + int target;
>> +
>> + if (!node_demotion)
>> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> +
>> + nd = &node_demotion[node];
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding this
>> + * function from running.
>> + *
>> + * Make sure to use RCU over entire code blocks if
>> + * node_demotion[] reads need to be consistent.
>> + */
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + /*
>> + * If there are multiple target nodes, just select one
>> + * target node randomly.
>> + *
>> + * In addition, we can also use round-robin to select
>> + * target node, but we should introduce another variable
>> + * for node_demotion[] to record last selected target node,
>> + * that may cause cache ping-pong due to the changing of
>> + * last target node. Or introducing per-cpu data to avoid
>> + * caching issue, which seems more complicated. So selecting
>> + * target node randomly seems better until now.
>> + */
>> + target = node_random(&nd->preferred);
>
> Don't find code to optimize node_random() for weight == 1 case, forget
> to do that?
I guess you suggested to do that as the patch for node_random or did I
got the review feedback wrong?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/87y1wdn30p.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The change for node_random will be patch outside this series.
-aneesh
