On 2/20/24 6:51 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:04:23 +0530 Donet Tom <donettom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>> @@ -2526,7 +2526,7 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> if (node_isset(curnid, pol->nodes))
>>>> goto out;
>>>> z = first_zones_zonelist(
>>>> - node_zonelist(numa_node_id(), GFP_HIGHUSER),
>>>> + node_zonelist(thisnid, GFP_HIGHUSER),
>>>> gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER),
>>>> &pol->nodes);
>>>> polnid = zone_to_nid(z->zone);
>>> int thisnid = cpu_to_node(thiscpu);
>>>
>>> Is there any dofference between numa_node_id() and
>>> cpu_to_node(raw_smp_processor_id())? And it it explicable that we're
>>> using one here and not the other?
>>
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> Both numa_node_id() and cpu_to_node(raw_smp_processor_id()) return the current execution node id,
>> Since the current execution node is already fetched at the beginning (thisnid) we can reuse it instead of getting it again.
>
> Sure, but mine was a broader thought: why do we have both? Is one
> preferable and if so why?
IIUC these are two helpers to fetch current numa node id. and either of them can be used based on need. The default implementation shows the details.
(One small difference is numa_node_id() can use optimized per cpu reader because it is fetching the per cpu variable of the currently running cpu.)
#ifndef numa_node_id
/* Returns the number of the current Node. */
static inline int numa_node_id(void)
{
return raw_cpu_read(numa_node);
}
#endif
#ifndef cpu_to_node
static inline int cpu_to_node(int cpu)
{
return per_cpu(numa_node, cpu);
}
#endif
In mpol_misplaced function, we need the cpu details because we are using that in other place (should_numa_migreate_memory()). So it makes it easy
to use cpu_to_node(thiscpu) instead of numa_node_id().
-aneesh
