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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53C4C433E3 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618B520760 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="SACF4faT" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 618B520760 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id F00808D0023; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 03:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E89758D000D; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 03:04:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D51D38D0023; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 03:04:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0169.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3A28D000D for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 03:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AF18248D7C for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:04:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77014019880.11.tray72_4316cc626ebb Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC9F180F8B92 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:04:19 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: tray72_4316cc626ebb X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5851 Received: from mail-ej1-f65.google.com (mail-ej1-f65.google.com [209.85.218.65]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f65.google.com with SMTP id lx13so30561175ejb.4 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:04:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j8DJkdquRNNePQZNFg7Hkhjp0N1sn7vgJTtn21OuChM=; b=SACF4faTk3zv/4UtH39KJpY1EyVX+rh7ao155Gc/PXjG8TrgshGBUjBtrUqQ+9gs7i L5vmTlibESrKgbfMTCGhiWtgPrAMhhcnkOHRM2Ia2Y8Jc9V+3LCyG/yJumUkViP3L7Pb a2I7dIXDDdaZ0Cuyka9u74Vv9AS609TdrAwDEKA4Wo08zzzHJdpen+IvOXLWzV+1McID uEfP5IZ8K/A1vsTLrUkqSpWu6J8+YyNaxkI3zkQBXIxOdEJ349cAM/R1VYOnd962N5Or Sr3whbUU5C6EZxDmca1o0Y6BVT+YPiq8mhQFC+bo3h9VIMzxObom+Gcbl8Fv4uHNxRxt MfoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j8DJkdquRNNePQZNFg7Hkhjp0N1sn7vgJTtn21OuChM=; b=jGzqGFDYyZGoHvlnv4Nx/XD1sLopar1Eye6WFSAmnqFeJ3QvPHHyYSxYtsC6o0s86A LsWG1IOA5i7/kHp+fiJYTvMTNOS4+72DA28PjlQ1FwvY91AGtBsechVq/WwuXHlgkBAO J+OODzNa0vJmKu4UR9hwItVjhwXCNr4NiquPNHa5bfxpqy76OKyt2LnDzTSrtN8uvJp9 dA+HNRoW54vcOd9wW55f3IZ3zqgeOdS13QVB5LoN57eiPt/RbBszn6BRGd2MU8mzSSyN t20smZ7mI0XeDYQJFNUm2vFJN+op7IB2rbO0ycaoDVGIDZZvuGIDleTShjzjD4dhMvHj yNNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wYiuJbZkIlJnEa0WsynqtViLmKKOwkw4HstfJF0DstdHiahFU V3Sy3abbPgt6oAPciYSyX+O6RJxSsFDJ3TEdWUWnQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRGR0MQswLR49lOWdnIujwwLeu+bZjq5kGBbvha0J5qEn/N4WpOBb/iGUCPM+O4K8cgy9DfyN1wDvRoKcTF84= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b888:: with SMTP id hb8mr50016102ejb.124.1594191857256; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:04:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200707055917.143653-1-justin.he@arm.com> <20200707055917.143653-2-justin.he@arm.com> <20200707115454.GN5913@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200708062217.GE386073@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:04:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Mike Rapoport , Justin He , Michal Hocko , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Vishal Verma , Dave Jiang , Andrew Morton , Baoquan He , Chuhong Yuan , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , Kaly Xin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: ACC9F180F8B92 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 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 Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:59 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 08.07.20 08:22, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:27:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Justin He wrote: > >> [..] > >>>> Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info > >>>> (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic > >>>> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does: > >>>> > >>>> int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr) > >>>> { > >>>> unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr); > >>>> int nid; > >>>> > >>>> for_each_online_node(nid) { > >>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); > >>>> if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn) > >>>> return nid; > >>>> } > >>>> return NUMA_NO_NODE; > >>>> } > >>> > >>> Thanks for your suggestion, > >>> Could I wrap the codes and let memory_add_physaddr_to_nid simply invoke > >>> phys_to_target_node()? > >> > >> I think it needs to be the reverse. phys_to_target_node() should call > >> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() by default, but fall back to searching > >> reserved memory address ranges in memblock. See phys_to_target_node() > >> in arch/x86/mm/numa.c. That one uses numa_meminfo instead of memblock, > >> but the principle is the same i.e. that a target node may not be > >> represented in memblock.memory, but memblock.reserved. I'm working on > >> a patch to provide a function similar to get_pfn_range_for_nid() that > >> operates on reserved memory. > > > > Do we really need yet another memblock iterator? > > I think only x86 has memory that is not in memblock.memory but only in > > memblock.reserved. > > Reading about abusing the memblock allcoator once again in memory > hotplug paths makes me shiver. Technical reasoning please? arm64 numa information is established from memblock data. It seems counterproductive to ignore that fact if we're already touching memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() and have a use case for a driver to call it.