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 B18E1C77B7A for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:47:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 48D396B007B; Wed, 24 May 2023 02:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 43D63900003; Wed, 24 May 2023 02:47:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 35CAF900002; Wed, 24 May 2023 02:47:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253BC6B007B for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 02:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADD6A0872 for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:47:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80824217670.12.A630D11 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC4518000F for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 06:47:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf06.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf06.hostedemail.com: domain of wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1684910853; 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=hHFtUAcDPUyUPD/nruZBrE+7IkWRS4ys4wcDIaxTziI=; b=gcM3ABKDb5OyGGGHQMMh1p2vP1EPfnjK6aF6Ooe+KNqSA2PazpZkMDQNudQCj17mUXO+rv oswtBxwrfBaZ2aB4U3FvaYee3ZSkoBtG73xJub48/EO9zSVyGIuFejrK+4BoW+LwMAUhvm cqC71lXieKUzJE89698o4tXpU1wBgUI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf06.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf06.hostedemail.com: domain of wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1684910853; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=sBtqeN6XAxlgn8yJgxcEBLqHXvJrX2ce0CszapCVvI1jAkLadFmhx8BbSovfOLHZprczQc TY6JK+TMYU6Gu7lx0rZVASxcluKnt+bnWdLZcUQqbRh0AjcVqC6pHsyFQaUjy8lvn42Iwe GhsAv3f6OvIFwWdfFFp7J8OJxDyisBo= Received: from dggpemm500001.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4QR1nw61V0zTkpW; Wed, 24 May 2023 14:42:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.243] (10.174.177.243) by dggpemm500001.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Wed, 24 May 2023 14:47:26 +0800 Message-ID: <4eb83d16-58ed-9f09-4308-f0f786580257@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 14:47:26 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: update numa node of memblk reserved type Content-Language: en-US To: Anshuman Khandual , <20230519105321.333-1-ssawgyw@gmail.com>, Mike Rapoport , Andrew Morton , CC: , , References: <20230523115708.195597-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> <03cdccc3-8b8a-d972-bbad-d60966e59ca9@arm.com> From: Kefeng Wang In-Reply-To: <03cdccc3-8b8a-d972-bbad-d60966e59ca9@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.243] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To dggpemm500001.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.107) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1BC4518000F X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: 9qgs9ipdq819rk69utmd1xsyrbmptmso X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-HE-Tag: 1684910852-316305 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1/+LzgAid4ioIB3FAfmIG8VxLFD4GWWxcZyY87TbEugzuehJ6fJDp2AsiyK33yXK1ODY7AVdhVCI+OejBzuSfLSmE8a6NtbBKDPpKufWZXCBt6gzE08/fSUfAlT7PvjXlP+/4WS8qv9MrpZiRoHb7mtpC351cOc47jZ7G5o+C/zQN8nDlVHoJrl/0vNJ25w5Xe7L0eAMd8cOYXkjivqoUGfZyrFWiXknpwFgOJIHk80oLoPj5HhaVz/G2NfWPn33k4ac/B9xXeMfUxy3zZWJ0JzONlTZoY2F5i1+760R+9PFTadv0sddfFGm1Q/wSHRtaz64mCvvmcPsb/zOdJINbJAg8I24oLt3N/uv0UMv8DEQtU3PvqLhD94CCzFlq0JigHPHRkoYbGH91C4VrM7TotJ2+1+QqR42QHwYOuYl9/TtYhHNShIR201N30HP8g/GEOdhMgvp02H+css+VxMGWEGqBna/368ekeZ/Qipof1olLj4nsOAZpkbIDYFRMOeQamtAeh7/l/Ouy7DWnM3hATkUd+KGQNKWqpDZiLQaawqmpVB9sREcetJSljtSDHehos/xrL1foYQNE0cOVm8Oaq0NnwMjNkM+XMrMz9DiS/uZOJyvneVtu8q2VDFrXZIvpYpu+oryxgS3Wb1YvYoHetcoKY8pINhkclgZlurR0LLj2/ODhJeTGdDlr4/EYx6Wd0XHTycc2e36mR/chjQ6bykGHmFgs7jNf6lkVx+64B06YD86IcWQkHigZjdPdV2ZA8/f01OYRqqYFWiu7vOeyu2q8FAxinetJExJlotBSqt15PuTEhmyCS2snmX7lLCF4DIckPyLuI7sMS0NLmomdWAevXzNiPhElbJUIco3GZkUekpKq49oKR8D4q0EgyTyyeZwK2S7/kTrXOP0PJXTpq0ocOVPWkE/1LdBOEXBTWaIYsXal3il1S58AMJBMTx/uUC+3liNv0 BKvAnlHk Cyv4vRF2fRUO50P6SXwUwEhGKogemNcdpd2BEvVGlGUbJWQrv01t0z5+UPvPVao8gemFAWlEvhXFcBnhOZfRXj8QLdxmSwZ431/6YiDFcxi9fnGob97ODZb9POqcf8XkiA7/HRlBw5Zi30rqIh6oWH5yNd2JloUzmH1en3tvVLFYCF2flv31gqbWhANGXDYgNLleaRpCrKWfJiE1Y8B6NwUznwnAlZ5EUT02y 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: On 2023/5/24 12:59, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 5/23/23 17:27, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> The numa node of memblk reserved type is wrong, it could update >> according to the numa node information from memblk memory type, >> let's fix it. > > Indeed it's wrong at present and can be verified from sysfs file > (/sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved) accessed in user space. Yes, both memblock_dump() and sysfs show wrong value. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang >> --- >> mm/memblock.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c >> index a50447d970ef..45a0781cda31 100644 >> --- a/mm/memblock.c >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c >> @@ -1922,6 +1922,28 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_get_current_limit(void) >> return memblock.current_limit; >> } >> >> +static void __init_memblock memblock_reserved_update_node(void) >> +{ >> + struct memblock_region *rgn; >> + phys_addr_t base, end, size; >> + int ret; >> + >> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)) >> + return; >> + >> + for_each_mem_region(rgn) { >> + base = rgn->base; >> + size = rgn->size; >> + end = base + size - 1; >> + >> + ret = memblock_set_node(base, size, &memblock.reserved, >> + memblock_get_region_node(rgn)); >> + if (ret) >> + pr_err("memblock: Failed to update reserved [%pa-%pa] node", >> + &base, &end); >> + } >> +} >> + >> static void __init_memblock memblock_dump(struct memblock_type *type) >> { >> phys_addr_t base, end, size; >> @@ -1955,6 +1977,7 @@ static void __init_memblock __memblock_dump_all(void) >> &memblock.memory.total_size, >> &memblock.reserved.total_size); >> >> + memblock_reserved_update_node(); > > __memblock_dump_all() gets called only when memblock_debug is enabled. > This helper should be called directly inside memblock_dump_all() right > at the beginning, regardless of memblock_debug. This is my first though, but I found there are still many memblock_alloc and memblock_reserve after memblock_dump_all(), so I update it twice, 1) __memblock_dump_all() 2) memblock_debug_show() and without the above two interface, no one care about the reserved node info, so I put memblock_reserved_update_node into __memblock_dump_all(). >> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP >> @@ -2196,6 +2219,8 @@ static int memblock_debug_show(struct seq_file *m, void *private) >> unsigned int count = ARRAY_SIZE(flagname); >> phys_addr_t end; >> >> + memblock_reserved_update_node(); >> + > > This is redundant, should be dropped. Reserved memblock ranges need not > be scanned, each time the sysfs file is accessed from user space. Yes, it's better to move it into memblock_init_debugfs(), which only called once.