From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2310C19ADBF for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743613402; cv=none; b=eW0J8cvphOtqGz4+PMe+c9y/xzvI+5jW342VNEpCWqrRVujaSaWapyx3xgNgqn1pId0vg4x5zSjOeJggoRSsB2IuviMNGlEkF5ypv+rDBQaauJQZ7H5mL3RLFLBAKIShHepJv5RJBs9eXn8IX+iEohkPdyNiN7EYpMndyjqqkWI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743613402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UPXAbSFM46LvItdz6K36Hv59vGh9Nkgg2+ffhWuDgFQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VcgtNt2AooUhfwN8zfZtX4wLctK5vMlhv7K2PmvHUtVgauERsNlp27BRZ2YIJFfvWfK1ddXsuqSzFbBmqJqGXiYwFz0rJPL973B1zUuYSP710hhvB7ljLURHCrIOZILNt2V2kULBM9Eq1wcxabvZ9UcqiMbhI2ircdakDE0zc9E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=rWFGI8P8; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=aha205K+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=rWFGI8P8; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b=aha205K+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="rWFGI8P8"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="aha205K+"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="rWFGI8P8"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=suse.de header.i=@suse.de header.b="aha205K+" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9BB1F38E; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:03:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1743613399; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fa6YlXKodz8uE2B17ypH6DPH4OLlDWUm8hFyF5FIY9Y=; b=rWFGI8P80VWPbDK82CvkzpgfMRqhsRT66++IButprgXUkvHplkNVR+XAfce703NyqRxfcm o2Mnvu1xS4IhZbCaKlE9zWZo3KFT7U8zBPJKZlJW82qj5MbU9BRPUik8tnzKz6atXEJ7wa 5jeb912wh//dS+1kIcc3XIVtg3IOkQA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1743613399; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fa6YlXKodz8uE2B17ypH6DPH4OLlDWUm8hFyF5FIY9Y=; b=aha205K+PISVQemmiSHd444KuIKNhvoqvLTkoXs+lESA7oYt3e01QexR7UdiM4dzX9Rahi zE4x/84orzT5wUAw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1743613399; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fa6YlXKodz8uE2B17ypH6DPH4OLlDWUm8hFyF5FIY9Y=; b=rWFGI8P80VWPbDK82CvkzpgfMRqhsRT66++IButprgXUkvHplkNVR+XAfce703NyqRxfcm o2Mnvu1xS4IhZbCaKlE9zWZo3KFT7U8zBPJKZlJW82qj5MbU9BRPUik8tnzKz6atXEJ7wa 5jeb912wh//dS+1kIcc3XIVtg3IOkQA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1743613399; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fa6YlXKodz8uE2B17ypH6DPH4OLlDWUm8hFyF5FIY9Y=; b=aha205K+PISVQemmiSHd444KuIKNhvoqvLTkoXs+lESA7oYt3e01QexR7UdiM4dzX9Rahi zE4x/84orzT5wUAw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDBED137D4; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id d/qQK9Zt7Wc2XwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:03:18 +0000 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:03:10 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, mkoutny@suse.com, Dan Williams , Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Implement numa node notifier Message-ID: References: <20250401092716.537512-1-osalvador@suse.de> <78c976ba-1eaf-47b7-a310-b8a99a3882e2@suse.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <78c976ba-1eaf-47b7-a310-b8a99a3882e2@suse.cz> X-Spam-Level: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.80 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[gmail.com]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[linux-foundation.org,redhat.com,kvack.org,vger.kernel.org,gmail.com,suse.com,intel.com,huawei.com]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,localhost.localdomain:mid] X-Spam-Score: -2.80 X-Spam-Flag: NO On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:06:51PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > What if we had two chains: > > register_node_notifier() > register_node_normal_notifier() > > I think they could have shared the state #defines and struct node_notify > would have just one nid and be always >= 0. > > Or would it add too much extra boilerplate and only slab cares? We could indeed go on that direction to try to decouple status_change_nid from status_change_nid_normal. Although as you said, slub is the only user of status_change_nid_normal for the time beign, so I am not sure of adding a second chain for only one user. Might look cleaner though, and the advantatge is that slub would not get notified for nodes adquiring only ZONE_MOVABLE. Let us see what David thinks about it. thanks for the suggestion ;-) -- Oscar Salvador SUSE Labs