June 27, 2023 10:33 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:13:16AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > >> June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: >> >> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: >> >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region. >> >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> What problem does this patch solve? >> >> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need >> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). >> >> When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still >> unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we >> still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later. >> >> Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region. >> choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), >> memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case. > > flags are only relevant to memblock.memory, we don't care about the flags > in memblock.reserved. > get it. >> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). >> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case. >> >> -- >> Sincerely yours, >> Mike. > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike.
