From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CEDE18DB26 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2025 18:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766775531; cv=none; b=MbyJHoTIiv55Ei6Cw0bqytSIK0BMnIevbz+WCbwUl/a0voNkJhtMvoAkQYlmgAK/u+3H+nmsCn5yUY/1Ek9VSIdKPZsP0Hi6XXIKJw7B+3/Iqo5BB0tEumT5MZ2Hnvz6uw4AiAp5LPHbiiI0nfczaAYNtt2YLOluEPalVtTO5wQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766775531; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vp60nhRpjDahcte5kKH3WmAxYr3+0ZBZhwZ5SHJjH+Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hFWeiYkr7gi7BbkobzYY5H9JzR/DmtnwFpw3lM1ruxhFdq7eO9MaC/YFFc5xv5l5xyP8MJ+kdBDugVdOCYbcJdQwDkz8fiGm0JxATE3ZQqpJOMvT+EteVhqeKxDX/p815UpvCqi23/wcZ4fmKpYbbmQPtJm37ui09OiZdr3YtvU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=r1jjDMqK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="r1jjDMqK" Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2a0d06cfa93so1097325ad.1 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:58:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1766775529; x=1767380329; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uhlrA5UD6vYZ+x3JcTWZGMJmIRFbEcfDotqJPwZRBT4=; b=r1jjDMqKR6lV7MGk4OxS2Y77ewqYdPWW2IEpvkzBxkHWUnyRhgIXwEZp7IjcBZVrdU 6iIZPc6OXnGT3+qL8vYjEx9EsOmpxZUK8+5bjk5c3Rcw3PdPwbSSLTWlMWfJBibpgMcD 8eqKfWt+p8PXQHNthw6ssTBEosY1DmvDcYC+2H1cBrs+VyOkDykrDo1coICR5vwxjWpF QYfnl2hrRRarUPVebQ0tUyKE2XoaHAx1XwV+b0uxqGiP2oKavNY7dzY9X9SUvbj5Vf8g F1YgFiX/86rbDaqgPj0J6PM1XtDTRU+O4ir5JjAuVzcWAoeN1NdLzyTwz5vbxpUveub9 LKRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1766775529; x=1767380329; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uhlrA5UD6vYZ+x3JcTWZGMJmIRFbEcfDotqJPwZRBT4=; b=UQxoxpQGoCHdcb9dpwNUMfLv2mbvzaCCqG94VlRcn3VBnhwoGpRiSCnz0UJJE2pB+u cNqmz9lJOnWtGEbkxWXyy/0m87p7VU4xBhzN4QyJIlJGHO+V8nB5BEDxfiHmmHnUNFQe Kc+0cXSdLhvwy8hAFR2viz3SFoJyzAPsSud+VS+G/qUnRMgWfmjAeasjw6V2mXdPSZwW G+ziYlxXZZ9NR6Ix4pVPvgArD8uuvt8NNd+P2JY7zvbLM3HrCiVebDvL7XDXKY7gu+bQ FTqbPHa3KjMpmuBVvZ5rHpeTTWH1lkzOY/Up2pNur6N0EWe8ojy4AAQpUGHUWTCdgpnn dOjA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXtKOlFbWKqy/72kY4OJ4BNxXenfddPXglJOqtbV80PV1ttsEVEqkafEThuwgvmiKEgtAwEgx9L@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxkqctXeWOs3DH7WSgNNw/qkQ+IAk08hOHeDo1YtaqrUFBIkMLo zWBOZZd4OHrEXTpstOtFNXLUCqsb3WVQ0xyky9QuVSSvJJX3hLwfzno6iZsjYiOpWQ== X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX5gEFIuYbEIf+HK5ZWAK93OgFa3DwyaOif6jb4bv35dQ4S0trIsOUNifNATUn5 fJ6TYzFshwXReG1ioMf0nNUuZuqWHX5jk3RIlOLMNVsepIYEx3/bP9QlA3FdC6QHoEwLi1mxoxX YJ1ly5DbPtRdJtd0veq7rS9nSGF4w96tBEkCU7g78o4YaO6RkfaOHM7XBYB0wfBLwdqeVUEF6be In5AdKqOf2Q5ZnBRx60OaEo3/2iiNW7r3ZoVxU6+/TvP1jSbqKVhmrGuJ/J9fZeDnJdoxsmo66s X+ipnlOga19bOne9FdsUQB5n+Je4rdLU+UfX8QiP2SyXj0nAq9ztgOVhJIzsvkofZpPN2NowGn4 CpXbEZacAep2tFYA8meXlzYZUpsVYelIQo3N2LI3PGv0/wUdB7DS7/F9p23Iu+W04bbiLSeiR5A ZokHKe3DmIYE6+bg8PxROYp5BKBhJiVdKQiwyTWzwqgewFEZmwMWZO X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGQFAd8PfbkonRWK/eILNYIR1fN8cIZOU37eemTt6WBkj4X56w0kou5ks+d/BcUYUIqHdofxw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2c06:b0:290:cd63:e922 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2a353a4e3fcmr4253275ad.15.1766775528500; Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (248.132.125.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.125.132.248]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2a2f3c87845sm214750925ad.39.2025.12.26.10.58.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:58:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 18:58:42 +0000 From: Bing Jiao To: Chen Ridong Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gourry@gourry.net, longman@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, tj@kernel.org, mkoutny@suse.com, david@kernel.org, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, axelrasmussen@google.com, yuanchu@google.com, weixugc@google.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/vmscan: fix demotion targets checks in reclaim/demotion Message-ID: References: <20251221233635.3761887-1-bingjiao@google.com> <20251223212032.665731-1-bingjiao@google.com> <646ee1fa-edd1-4588-9720-c3c1df8ebce5@huaweicloud.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <646ee1fa-edd1-4588-9720-c3c1df8ebce5@huaweicloud.com> On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 09:49:38AM +0800, Chen Ridong wrote: > > +nodemask_t cpuset_node_get_allowed(struct cgroup *cgroup) > > { > > Could we define it as: > > void cpuset_node_get_allowed(struct cgroup *cgroup, nodemask_t *node) > > to align with the naming style of node_get_allowed_targets? > > > -bool mem_cgroup_node_allowed(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int nid) > > +nodemask_t mem_cgroup_node_get_allowed(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > void mem_cgroup_node_get_allowed(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, nodemask_t *node) Thanks for the suggestion. Pass a pointer is better. Also, Gregory mentioned that the stack size may be an issue if systems have many nodes. Do you think it is better to use mem_cgroup_node_filter_allowed() to keep the stack size smaller? > > - demotion_nid = next_demotion_node(nid); > > - if (demotion_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) > > + node_get_allowed_targets(pgdat, &allowed_mask); > > + if (nodes_empty(allowed_mask)) > > + return false; This is a fast-fail path. When the queried node is the farthest node, allowed_mask will be empty. Thus, I would like to keep this check before mem_cgroup_node_get_allowed(). > > + > > + allowed_mems = mem_cgroup_node_get_allowed(memcg); > > + nodes_and(allowed_mask, allowed_mask, allowed_mems); > > + if (nodes_empty(allowed_mask)) > > return false; > > > node_get_allowed_targets(pgdat, &allowed_mask); > mem_cgroup_node_get_allowed(memcg, allowed_mems); > if (!nodes_intersects(allowed_mask, allowed_mems)) > return false; > > Would it look better? Yes, nodes_intersects() is better than logic-and. Will update in v3. Best, Bing