Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] mm,slub: Use node-notifier instead of memory-notifier

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 05.06.25 16:22, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> slub is only concerned when a numa node changes its memory state,
> so stop using the memory notifier and use the new numa node notifer
> instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> ---
>   mm/slub.c | 13 +++++--------
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index f92b43d36adc..b8b5b81bfd1a 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -6164,8 +6164,8 @@ static int slab_mem_going_online_callback(void *arg)
>   {
>   	struct kmem_cache_node *n;
>   	struct kmem_cache *s;
> -	struct memory_notify *marg = arg;
> -	int nid = marg->status_change_nid;
> +	struct node_notify *narg = arg;
> +	int nid = narg->nid;
>   	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	/*
> @@ -6217,15 +6217,12 @@ static int slab_memory_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
>   	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	switch (action) {
> -	case MEM_GOING_ONLINE:
> +	case NODE_ADDING_FIRST_MEMORY:
>   		ret = slab_mem_going_online_callback(arg);

In slab_mem_going_online_callback we will cast arg to "struct 
memory_notify", no?

Probably needs to get fixed.

... and probably best to pass marg directly.

>   		break;
> -	case MEM_GOING_OFFLINE:
> +	case NODE_REMOVING_LAST_MEMORY:
>   		ret = slab_mem_going_offline_callback(arg);

slab_mem_going_offline_callback() doesn't even look at arg, so likely we 
can drop that parameter?


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb