From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61332EB64D7 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 07:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229544AbjFRHJf (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jun 2023 03:09:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54462 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229485AbjFRHJc (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jun 2023 03:09:32 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AE0A10E0 for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 00:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BBA760DCE for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 07:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62BC4C433C0; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 07:09:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1687072170; bh=JtfdClECfN8YVYAgrgvYa8BILPJkj4nOja+go6KxzGk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WZCy4MTgaNYHL74aVzpVXXxSsnRC+Jc60nwps7hpZerQU0Cq/6p1QNRE02uqQ44vv SP41j7Zox7ACcdHNTfSysULK6V3d2L160EM2s4yTFKERK9vO5qfWPxNJVkyf7x1k+n pQQZ22VH66BKf1AOiIkON22JcHBHntmadMVibOzEp7W2CuXPy+RBWYDgYJ9Xk4V9rU A4vkl947/aPk6vk5rCmiHz7W4OwZIWC95rnL7sm5WEMCza/DmiwXdyqWdroykxHBjd BKKyT8E+ABUQaNGb76htQU8+GQ2PNvT9GENqQJ34+zRrJ2sUnqSSTCCrIF45XSJfbW 84+gotcSUkOVA== Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 10:08:50 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Liam Ni Cc: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,NUMA:Get the number of ram pages directly in numa_meminfo_cover_memory() Message-ID: <20230618070850.GY52412@kernel.org> References: <20230615142016.419570-1-zhiguangni01@gmail.com> <20230615170011.GK52412@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 06:47:11PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 01:00, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:20:16AM +1000, Liam Ni wrote: > > > In a previous implementation,The ram page is calculated > > > by counting the number of holes, > > > however,the number of ram pages is calculated during hole calculation. > > > Therefore,we can directly calculate the amount of ram pages. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Liam Ni > > > --- > > > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 4 ++-- > > > include/linux/mm.h | 4 ++++ > > > mm/mm_init.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > index 2aadb2019b4f..8ea0e956e3d7 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > > > @@ -461,12 +461,12 @@ static bool __init numa_meminfo_cover_memory(const struct numa_meminfo *mi) > > > u64 s = mi->blk[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > u64 e = mi->blk[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > numaram += e - s; > > > - numaram -= __absent_pages_in_range(mi->blk[i].nid, s, e); > > > + numaram += __available_pages_in_range(mi->blk[i].nid, s, e); > > > > This is wrong. You add number of pages in range core MM sees to the number > > of pages covered by the numa_meminfo. > > > > More generally, rather than traverse all the numa_meminfo's and for each of > > them traverse all the regions in memblock.memory it's enough to count > > memory in memblock that doesn't have the node assigned and compare it to > > memblock_phys_mem_size(). > > Logic like below? > static bool __init numa_meminfo_cover_memory(const struct numa_meminfo *mi) > { > u64 error_value; > error_value = pages_without_nid_in_range(0,max_pfn); > if ((error_value ) >= (1 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT))) { > //print error information > return false; > } > return true; > } > > I can't figure out why compare it with memblock_phys_mem_size(). > The number of pages in memblock that doesn't have the node > assigned,which also means that these pages are not in numa_info. > So these pages can represent the number of lose pages. Yes, there is no need to compare with memblock_phys_mem_size() if you count pages that don't have nid set in memblock. > Thanks > Liam Ni -- Sincerely yours, Mike.