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 CCA3CEB64D7 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 17:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231179AbjFURth (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2023 13:49:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51228 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229452AbjFURtf (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2023 13:49:35 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B84D21718 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:49:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1687369774; x=1718905774; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I08I0tFez5dKhmqeca820CtuAFLZd/1a4u1jpCZwwdI=; b=DqgwkkVDS+dRXP3TQqwa5oZhuBlWzkondIvEtjdOzTjrCEjMUaGn+vZN ZbSOo8BUbnqHuOqdN/TM9FhlHhjoGtGRLvMjM7eC/Xls7GpQ6vd//GYVY d/ZtShKUk1grGcZL8cmdRMQ9uLzOop4hzIXYfGtuxzphvCTA513dNa3DW k9hOoJrDEUVifkVMwD5Gjsj7HDGHet3bqoopbZXIqzmo7A+dPp+C8dPvp +5dFq76TijcRJJasAsp7CXXLfcAU8ggMUn172WEAQRXrwx2E81kt4/YVs aAM9HJvJoVryq97UB1p6aC6FnLtGwvbKoePTnKsrQVDjEn0OT8sMYdoiy g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10748"; a="389819222" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,261,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="389819222" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2023 10:49:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10748"; a="708807532" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,261,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="708807532" Received: from rmathew-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.134.235]) ([10.212.134.235]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2023 10:49:32 -0700 Message-ID: <22bba771-f10b-8624-1874-5eb747e798dd@intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:49:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,NUMA:Get the number of ram pages directly in numa_meminfo_cover_memory() Content-Language: en-US To: Liam Ni , 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, rppt@kernel.org Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20230615142016.419570-1-zhiguangni01@gmail.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20230615142016.419570-1-zhiguangni01@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/15/23 07:20, 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. What problem does this patch solve?