On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:35:23 -0400 Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 64 bool folio_has_cpupid(struct folio *folio)
> > 65 {
> > 66 return !(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) ||
> > 67 node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio));
> > 68 }
> > 69
>
> The error has been reported by Lorenzo Stoakes at: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/6effd690-3cf2-46bc-8061-2d19922ad4fa@lucifer.local/.
> I will fix it in the next version.
a) "in the next version" is too casual, sorry. We broke the build! Panic!
I'll apply this:
--- a/mm/memory-tiers.c~memory-tiering-introduce-folio_has_cpupid-check-fix
+++ a/mm/memory-tiers.c
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ static const struct bus_type memory_tier
.dev_name = "memory_tier",
};
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
/**
* folio_has_cpupid - check if a folio has cpupid information
* @folio: folio to check
@@ -66,6 +67,7 @@ bool folio_has_cpupid(struct folio *foli
return !(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) ||
node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio));
}
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION
static int top_tier_adistance;
_
b) is a next version planned so soon? If so, why was this version
sent? Please try to avoid sending an entire new patchset for a few
trivial fixups. Just send the fixups!
