From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D757B28F511 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749039432; cv=none; b=PIvEPt28acnIZyQJFOVLUZEEgKDNQKo1sEWrEvsW9w2OzlE42Y93PuSEte3jIlYxhz9zlFPh4VMlUZ+k8J+wEgdy/5rMZ2txsARjsG/WHiq0vrbrIWOkIge1tk5IRPznRyMe17qAXaDlI77SB3BOpRWzSIXgptPi/ri+cEjnlrY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749039432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dYrtAsRbWJD7CMmunRxvqC1sQtm1EdHAuEkfEDRb+xE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=G1dKZcW38pHb5xkbSrP0nctsalQXknAJ/4mUcAdc5lnt34lqEBOCcTCqB0DG0GoOxK2VeuA/VllqGU8vrVL2yP55Y7/SBnh2/IUxF9Cmul41y4upvpvGEiXbJKjgdvPt6z4Mj6AEDUIi7aVU1T9WPDdP3sfkf0fElKeJNnmDa8I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.174]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4bC60Q6NdBz10Wct; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:12:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf200006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.61]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D39C91400C8; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:17:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.112.40] (10.67.112.40) by dggpemf200006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:17:06 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:16:59 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mm,slub: Do not special case N_NORMAL nodes for slab_nodes To: Oscar Salvador , Andrew Morton CC: David Hildenbrand , Vlastimil Babka , Jonathan Cameron , Harry Yoo , Rakie Kim , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, , References: <20250603110850.192912-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20250603110850.192912-2-osalvador@suse.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Yunsheng Lin In-Reply-To: <20250603110850.192912-2-osalvador@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.68) To dggpemf200006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.61) On 2025/6/3 19:08, Oscar Salvador wrote: > Currently, slab_mem_going_going_callback() checks whether the node has slab_mem_going_going_callback() might be a typo here. I suppose slab_mem_going_online_callback() might be the correct one here. > N_NORMAL memory in order to be set in slab_nodes. > While it is true that gettind rid of that enforcing would mean > ending up with movables nodes in slab_nodes, the memory waste that comes > with that is negligible. > > So stop checking for status_change_nid_normal and just use status_change_nid > instead which works for both types of memory. > > Also, once we allocate the kmem_cache_node cache for the node in ^^ seems like a minor nit, an extral space for the above.