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 kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3252CCA0EF8 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:54:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B17FE8E003B; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 04:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AF1928E0037; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 04:54:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A2CF98E003B; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 04:54:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BC78E0037 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 04:54:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A789160409 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:54:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83796524364.17.52F1A04 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E959540003 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of jonathan.cameron@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1755680060; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Y94xWgJkWzyiG2PFh43lADMURu7tuZZhBa0gZwmOVXo=; b=oBD2D3N4FSDfhC5fRp1ZORdWythsnXgrCGjUIzmF445GNNjTQkPtN/aVQPPS6/vD3IpzJX yZI1PfTxkZMpK7HoHM78O9Kq5oeZebS1NqKeOh9O069PUgw12ijMzK6xxcU3x4a1YN9dwl R0O5Iy70ncz/t//DvyZUs7VC+sV2H3c= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1755680060; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ipx6Frm50nKkWBLoTkckityQO6d5eiRiXkjcvIHQG1zoFHMdVhtJskKEO17BOPt2HXrKh6 nEteqnA4BtmVt0dauN02FVXMDNNwsnPEkn8DrIVzMaqO9Wuqqq0RG+HNDF9xST8z0whItk OXebSkPF3OvXqLVc5M2ZaNL8r70nhtI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of jonathan.cameron@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4c6KtT2CW1z6FHD3; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 16:51:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A5D1402FB; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 16:54:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:54:14 +0200 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:54:13 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Mike Rapoport CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/3] mm: Add support to retrieve physical address range of memory from the node ID Message-ID: <20250820095413.00003bd7@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20250812142616.2330-1-shiju.jose@huawei.com> <20250812142616.2330-2-shiju.jose@huawei.com> <20250819175420.00007ce6@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.203.177.66] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E959540003 X-Stat-Signature: zh9tedayeyiuqdqepuwds1djauna6sfe X-HE-Tag: 1755680059-830761 X-HE-Meta: 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 xKZ4Y6/x xb3WU+VEVLj1CsIUAoIBu3QzRN7lmZCaYMHnbVQNWNGK1CAl0mfjcx61SEN+mjLwTmNxJaR22k/vfJn8cU4tkB0i+djExehoOw8av1suyZiRiL6GXlwq3gxdlN08Vl8yuahhpu5pItJzO1gvLCpk3QLinRMFcSDpaU8XaToF5pEhpIh6CJUA6ut3o8+0fBf18INcEQRTVBTncxf0iMfhM5bRhRNg4XjO0O6wpaFPrbbvmr1kYlMZ5h0ufQx4OFxU5DHfxT2rJruWsc/pnYHLBCawMQPKQnxX3NVAnvc67Rhinjh4= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:34:13 +0300 Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 05:54:20PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:26:13 +0100 > > wrote: > > > > > From: Shiju Jose > > > > > > In the numa_memblks, a lookup facility is required to retrieve the > > > physical address range of memory in a NUMA node. ACPI RAS2 memory > > > features are among the use cases. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron > > > Signed-off-by: Shiju Jose > > > > Looks fine to me. Mike, what do you think? > > I still don't see why we can't use existing functions like > get_pfn_range_for_nid() or memblock_search_pfn_nid(). > > Or even node_start_pfn() and node_spanned_pages(). Good point. No reason anyone would scrub this on memory that hasn't been hotplugged yet, so no need to use numa-memblk to get the info. I guess I was thinking of the wrong hammer :) I'm not sure node_spanned_pages() works though as we need not to include ranges that might be on another node as we'd give a wrong impression of what was being scrubbed. Should be able to use some combination of node_start_pfn() and maybe memblock_search_pfn_nid() to get it though (that also gets the nid we already know but meh, no ral harm in that.) Jonathan > > > One passing comment inline. > > > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron > > > > > --- > > > include/linux/numa.h | 9 +++++++++ > > > include/linux/numa_memblks.h | 2 ++ > > > mm/numa.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > mm/numa_memblks.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/numa.h b/include/linux/numa.h > > > index e6baaf6051bc..1d1aabebd26b 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/numa.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/numa.h > > > @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); > > > int phys_to_target_node(u64 start); > > > #endif > > > > > > +#ifndef nid_get_mem_physaddr_range > > > +int nid_get_mem_physaddr_range(int nid, u64 *start, u64 *end); > > > +#endif > > > + > > > int numa_fill_memblks(u64 start, u64 end); > > > > > > #else /* !CONFIG_NUMA */ > > > @@ -63,6 +67,11 @@ static inline int phys_to_target_node(u64 start) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static inline int nid_get_mem_physaddr_range(int nid, u64 *start, u64 *end) > > > +{ > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > static inline void alloc_offline_node_data(int nid) {} > > > #endif > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/numa_memblks.h b/include/linux/numa_memblks.h > > > index 991076cba7c5..7b32d96d0134 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/numa_memblks.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/numa_memblks.h > > > @@ -55,6 +55,8 @@ extern int phys_to_target_node(u64 start); > > > #define phys_to_target_node phys_to_target_node > > > extern int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start); > > > #define memory_add_physaddr_to_nid memory_add_physaddr_to_nid > > > +extern int nid_get_mem_physaddr_range(int nid, u64 *start, u64 *end); > > > +#define nid_get_mem_physaddr_range nid_get_mem_physaddr_range > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO */ > > > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_MEMBLKS */ > > > diff --git a/mm/numa.c b/mm/numa.c > > > index 7d5e06fe5bd4..5335af1fefee 100644 > > > --- a/mm/numa.c > > > +++ b/mm/numa.c > > > @@ -59,3 +59,13 @@ int phys_to_target_node(u64 start) > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(phys_to_target_node); > > > #endif > > > + > > > +#ifndef nid_get_mem_physaddr_range > > > +int nid_get_mem_physaddr_range(int nid, u64 *start, u64 *end) > > > +{ > > > + pr_info_once("Unknown target phys addr range for node=%d\n", nid); > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nid_get_mem_physaddr_range); > > > +#endif > > > diff --git a/mm/numa_memblks.c b/mm/numa_memblks.c > > > index 541a99c4071a..e1e56b7a3499 100644 > > > --- a/mm/numa_memblks.c > > > +++ b/mm/numa_memblks.c > > > @@ -590,4 +590,41 @@ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 start) > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid); > > > > > > +/** > > > + * nid_get_mem_physaddr_range - Get the physical address range > > > + * of the memblk in the NUMA node. > > > + * @nid: NUMA node ID of the memblk > > > + * @start: Start address of the memblk > > > + * @end: End address of the memblk > > > + * > > > + * Find the lowest contiguous physical memory address range of the memblk > > > + * in the NUMA node with the given nid and return the start and end > > > + * addresses. > > > + * > > > + * RETURNS: > > > + * 0 on success, -errno on failure. > > > + */ > > > +int nid_get_mem_physaddr_range(int nid, u64 *start, u64 *end) > > > +{ > > > + struct numa_meminfo *mi = &numa_meminfo; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + if (!numa_valid_node(nid)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { > > > + if (mi->blk[i].nid == nid) { > > > + *start = mi->blk[i].start; > > > + /* > > > + * Assumption: mi->blk[i].end is the last address > > > + * in the range + 1. > > > > This was my fault for asking on internal review if this was documented > > anywhere. It's kind of implicitly obvious when reading numa_memblk.c > > because there are a bunch of end - 1 prints. > > So can probably drop this comment. > > > > > + */ > > > + *end = mi->blk[i].end; > > > + return 0; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nid_get_mem_physaddr_range); > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_KEEP_MEMINFO */ > > >