From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
"John Paul Adrian Glaubitz" <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<loongarch@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>, <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
<nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:16:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240719191647.000072f6@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240716111346.3676969-13-rppt@kernel.org>
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:41 +0300
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org>
>
> Move code dealing with numa_memblks from arch/x86 to mm/ and add Kconfig
> options to let x86 select it in its Kconfig.
>
> This code will be later reused by arch_numa.
>
> No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>
Hi Mike,
My only real concern in here is there are a few places where
the lifted code makes changes to memblocks that are x86 only today.
I need to do some more digging to work out if those are safe
in all cases.
Jonathan
> +/**
> + * numa_cleanup_meminfo - Cleanup a numa_meminfo
> + * @mi: numa_meminfo to clean up
> + *
> + * Sanitize @mi by merging and removing unnecessary memblks. Also check for
> + * conflicts and clear unused memblks.
> + *
> + * RETURNS:
> + * 0 on success, -errno on failure.
> + */
> +int __init numa_cleanup_meminfo(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> +{
> + const u64 low = 0;
Given always zero, why not just use that value inline?
> + const u64 high = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn);
> + int i, j, k;
> +
> + /* first, trim all entries */
> + for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
> + struct numa_memblk *bi = &mi->blk[i];
> +
> + /* move / save reserved memory ranges */
> + if (!memblock_overlaps_region(&memblock.memory,
> + bi->start, bi->end - bi->start)) {
> + numa_move_tail_memblk(&numa_reserved_meminfo, i--, mi);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /* make sure all non-reserved blocks are inside the limits */
> + bi->start = max(bi->start, low);
> +
> + /* preserve info for non-RAM areas above 'max_pfn': */
> + if (bi->end > high) {
> + numa_add_memblk_to(bi->nid, high, bi->end,
> + &numa_reserved_meminfo);
> + bi->end = high;
> + }
> +
> + /* and there's no empty block */
> + if (bi->start >= bi->end)
> + numa_remove_memblk_from(i--, mi);
> + }
> +
> + /* merge neighboring / overlapping entries */
> + for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) {
> + struct numa_memblk *bi = &mi->blk[i];
> +
> + for (j = i + 1; j < mi->nr_blks; j++) {
> + struct numa_memblk *bj = &mi->blk[j];
> + u64 start, end;
> +
> + /*
> + * See whether there are overlapping blocks. Whine
> + * about but allow overlaps of the same nid. They
> + * will be merged below.
> + */
> + if (bi->end > bj->start && bi->start < bj->end) {
> + if (bi->nid != bj->nid) {
> + pr_err("node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] overlaps with node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> + bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end - 1,
> + bj->nid, bj->start, bj->end - 1);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + pr_warn("Warning: node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] overlaps with itself [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> + bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end - 1,
> + bj->start, bj->end - 1);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Join together blocks on the same node, holes
> + * between which don't overlap with memory on other
> + * nodes.
> + */
> + if (bi->nid != bj->nid)
> + continue;
> + start = min(bi->start, bj->start);
> + end = max(bi->end, bj->end);
> + for (k = 0; k < mi->nr_blks; k++) {
> + struct numa_memblk *bk = &mi->blk[k];
> +
> + if (bi->nid == bk->nid)
> + continue;
> + if (start < bk->end && end > bk->start)
> + break;
> + }
> + if (k < mi->nr_blks)
> + continue;
> + pr_info("NUMA: Node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] + [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx] -> [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
> + bi->nid, bi->start, bi->end - 1, bj->start,
> + bj->end - 1, start, end - 1);
> + bi->start = start;
> + bi->end = end;
> + numa_remove_memblk_from(j--, mi);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* clear unused ones */
> + for (i = mi->nr_blks; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mi->blk); i++) {
> + mi->blk[i].start = mi->blk[i].end = 0;
> + mi->blk[i].nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> +/*
> + * Mark all currently memblock-reserved physical memory (which covers the
> + * kernel's own memory ranges) as hot-unswappable.
> + */
> +static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void)
This will be a change for non x86 architectures. 'should' be fine
but I'm not 100% sure.
> +{
> + nodemask_t reserved_nodemask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> + struct memblock_region *mb_region;
> + int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * We have to do some preprocessing of memblock regions, to
> + * make them suitable for reservation.
> + *
> + * At this time, all memory regions reserved by memblock are
> + * used by the kernel, but those regions are not split up
> + * along node boundaries yet, and don't necessarily have their
> + * node ID set yet either.
> + *
> + * So iterate over all memory known to the x86 architecture,
Comment needs an update at least given not x86 specific any more.
> + * and use those ranges to set the nid in memblock.reserved.
> + * This will split up the memblock regions along node
> + * boundaries and will set the node IDs as well.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < numa_meminfo.nr_blks; i++) {
> + struct numa_memblk *mb = numa_meminfo.blk + i;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = memblock_set_node(mb->start, mb->end - mb->start,
> + &memblock.reserved, mb->nid);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Now go over all reserved memblock regions, to construct a
> + * node mask of all kernel reserved memory areas.
> + *
> + * [ Note, when booting with mem=nn[kMG] or in a kdump kernel,
> + * numa_meminfo might not include all memblock.reserved
> + * memory ranges, because quirks such as trim_snb_memory()
> + * reserve specific pages for Sandy Bridge graphics. ]
> + */
> + for_each_reserved_mem_region(mb_region) {
> + int nid = memblock_get_region_node(mb_region);
> +
> + if (nid != MAX_NUMNODES)
> + node_set(nid, reserved_nodemask);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Finally, clear the MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG flag for all memory
> + * belonging to the reserved node mask.
> + *
> + * Note that this will include memory regions that reside
> + * on nodes that contain kernel memory - entire nodes
> + * become hot-unpluggable:
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < numa_meminfo.nr_blks; i++) {
> + struct numa_memblk *mb = numa_meminfo.blk + i;
> +
> + if (!node_isset(mb->nid, reserved_nodemask))
> + continue;
> +
> + memblock_clear_hotplug(mb->start, mb->end - mb->start);
> + }
> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-19 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-16 11:13 [PATCH 00/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 01/17] mm: move kernel/numa.c to mm/ Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 13:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 02/17] MIPS: sgi-ip27: make NODE_DATA() the same as on all other architectures Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 14:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 7:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 03/17] MIPS: loongson64: rename __node_data to node_data Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 13:07 ` Jiaxun Yang
2024-07-17 14:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 04/17] arch, mm: move definition of node_data to generic code Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-23 0:15 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 05/17] arch, mm: pull out allocation of NODE_DATA " Mike Rapoport
2024-07-17 14:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-18 7:02 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 15:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:34 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 15:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-19 15:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 16:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-20 10:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 06/17] x86/numa: simplify numa_distance allocation Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 7:51 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 07/17] x86/numa: move FAKE_NODE_* defines to numa_emu Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 08/17] x86/numa_emu: simplify allocation of phys_dist Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 09/17] x86/numa_emu: split __apicid_to_node update to a helper function Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:47 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 10/17] x86/numa_emu: use a helper function to get MAX_DMA32_PFN Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 11/17] x86/numa: numa_{add,remove}_cpu: make cpu parameter unsigned Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 12/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-07-22 8:03 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 13/17] mm: move numa_distance and related code from x86 to numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-18 21:46 ` Samuel Holland
2024-07-19 5:55 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 17:48 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-20 12:25 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 14/17] mm: introduce numa_emulation Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 16:03 ` Zi Yan
2024-07-20 12:09 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 15/17] mm: make numa_memblks more self-contained Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:07 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-20 12:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-22 8:05 ` Mike Rapoport
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 16/17] arch_numa: switch over to numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-16 11:13 ` [PATCH 17/17] mm: make range-to-target_node lookup facility a part of numa_memblks Mike Rapoport
2024-07-19 18:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-19 13:33 ` [PATCH 00/17] mm: introduce numa_memblks Jonathan Cameron
2024-07-22 8:08 ` Mike Rapoport
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240719191647.000072f6@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreas@gaisler.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nvdimm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).