On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:00:13PM +0800, Shile Zhang wrote:
> Use alloc_pages_node() allocate memory for vring queue with proper
> NUMA affinity.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Jiang Liu <liuj97@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Do you observe any performance gains from this patch?
I also wonder why isn't the probe code run on the correct numa node?
That would fix a wide class of issues like this without need to tweak
drivers.
Bjorn, what do you think? Was this considered?
> ---
> Changelog
> v1 -> v2:
> - fixed compile warning reported by LKP.
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index 58b96baa8d48..d38fd6872c8c 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -276,9 +276,11 @@ static void *vring_alloc_queue(struct virtio_device *vdev, size_t size,
> return dma_alloc_coherent(vdev->dev.parent, size,
> dma_handle, flag);
> } else {
> - void *queue = alloc_pages_exact(PAGE_ALIGN(size), flag);
> -
> - if (queue) {
> + void *queue = NULL;
> + struct page *page = alloc_pages_node(dev_to_node(vdev->dev.parent),
> + flag, get_order(size));
> + if (page) {
> + queue = page_address(page);
> phys_addr_t phys_addr = virt_to_phys(queue);
> *dma_handle = (dma_addr_t)phys_addr;
>
> @@ -308,7 +310,7 @@ static void vring_free_queue(struct virtio_device *vdev, size_t size,
> if (vring_use_dma_api(vdev))
> dma_free_coherent(vdev->dev.parent, size, queue, dma_handle);
> else
> - free_pages_exact(queue, PAGE_ALIGN(size));
> + free_pages((unsigned long)queue, get_order(size));
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.24.0.rc2
