"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2/20/24 12:02 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> On 2/20/24 11:55 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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().
>>>
>>> IIUC, numa_node_id() is faster than cpu_to_node(thiscpu), even if we
>>> have thiscpu already. cpu_to_node() is mainly used to get the node of
>>> NOT current CPU. So, IMHO, we should only use numa_node_id() in this
>>> function.
>>>
>>
>> This change?
>>
>> modified mm/mempolicy.c
>> @@ -2502,8 +2502,7 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> pgoff_t ilx;
>> struct zoneref *z;
>> int curnid = folio_nid(folio);
>> - int thiscpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>> - int thisnid = cpu_to_node(thiscpu);
>> + int thisnid = numa_node_id();
>> int polnid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> int ret = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>
>> @@ -2573,7 +2572,7 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> polnid = thisnid;
>>
>> if (!should_numa_migrate_memory(current, folio, curnid,
>> - thiscpu))
>> + raw_smp_processor_id()))
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>>
>
> One of the problem with the above change will be the need to make sure smp processor id remaining stable, which
> I am not sure we want in this function. With that we can end up with processor id not related to the numa node id
> we are using.
This isn't an issue now, because mpol_misplaced() are always called with
PTL held. And, we can still keep thiscpu local variable.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
