2020-03-29 02:50:52

by Wei Yang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE define used_mask

For all 0 nodemask_t, we have already define macro NODE_MASK_NONE.
Leverage this to define an all clear nodemask.

Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <[email protected]>

---
v3: adjust the commit log a little
v2: use NODE_MASK_NONE as suggested by David Hildenbrand
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index ef790dfad6aa..dfcf2682ed40 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -5587,14 +5587,13 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
{
static int node_order[MAX_NUMNODES];
int node, load, nr_nodes = 0;
- nodemask_t used_mask;
+ nodemask_t used_mask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
int local_node, prev_node;

/* NUMA-aware ordering of nodes */
local_node = pgdat->node_id;
load = nr_online_nodes;
prev_node = local_node;
- nodes_clear(used_mask);

memset(node_order, 0, sizeof(node_order));
while ((node = find_next_best_node(local_node, &used_mask)) >= 0) {
--
2.23.0


2020-03-29 04:04:00

by John Hubbard

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE define used_mask

On 3/28/20 7:42 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
> For all 0 nodemask_t, we have already define macro NODE_MASK_NONE.
> Leverage this to define an all clear nodemask.

It would be a little clearer if you used wording more like this:

Subject: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE in build_zonelists()

Slightly simplify the code by initializing user_mask with
NODE_MASK_NONE, instead of later calling nodes_clear(). This saves
a line of code.


>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> v3: adjust the commit log a little
> v2: use NODE_MASK_NONE as suggested by David Hildenbrand
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index ef790dfad6aa..dfcf2682ed40 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -5587,14 +5587,13 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> {
> static int node_order[MAX_NUMNODES];
> int node, load, nr_nodes = 0;
> - nodemask_t used_mask;
> + nodemask_t used_mask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> int local_node, prev_node;
>
> /* NUMA-aware ordering of nodes */
> local_node = pgdat->node_id;
> load = nr_online_nodes;
> prev_node = local_node;
> - nodes_clear(used_mask);
>
> memset(node_order, 0, sizeof(node_order));
> while ((node = find_next_best_node(local_node, &used_mask)) >= 0) {
>

Honestly, I don't think it's really worth doing a patch for this, but
there's nothing wrong with the diff, so:

Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <[email protected]>


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

2020-03-29 06:10:07

by Wei Yang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE define used_mask

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 09:00:26PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>On 3/28/20 7:42 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
>> For all 0 nodemask_t, we have already define macro NODE_MASK_NONE.
>> Leverage this to define an all clear nodemask.
>
>It would be a little clearer if you used wording more like this:
>
>Subject: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE in build_zonelists()
>
>Slightly simplify the code by initializing user_mask with
>NODE_MASK_NONE, instead of later calling nodes_clear(). This saves
>a line of code.
>

Thanks, the wording is better.

>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>> v3: adjust the commit log a little
>> v2: use NODE_MASK_NONE as suggested by David Hildenbrand
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index ef790dfad6aa..dfcf2682ed40 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -5587,14 +5587,13 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>> {
>> static int node_order[MAX_NUMNODES];
>> int node, load, nr_nodes = 0;
>> - nodemask_t used_mask;
>> + nodemask_t used_mask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> int local_node, prev_node;
>> /* NUMA-aware ordering of nodes */
>> local_node = pgdat->node_id;
>> load = nr_online_nodes;
>> prev_node = local_node;
>> - nodes_clear(used_mask);
>> memset(node_order, 0, sizeof(node_order));
>> while ((node = find_next_best_node(local_node, &used_mask)) >= 0) {
>>
>
>Honestly, I don't think it's really worth doing a patch for this, but
>there's nothing wrong with the diff, so:
>
>Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <[email protected]>
>

Thanks.

>
>thanks,
>--
>John Hubbard
>NVIDIA

--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

2020-03-30 16:29:26

by David Hildenbrand

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE define used_mask

On 29.03.20 06:00, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/28/20 7:42 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
>> For all 0 nodemask_t, we have already define macro NODE_MASK_NONE.
>> Leverage this to define an all clear nodemask.
>
> It would be a little clearer if you used wording more like this:
>
> Subject: [Patch v3] mm/page_alloc.c: use NODE_MASK_NONE in build_zonelists()
>
> Slightly simplify the code by initializing user_mask with
> NODE_MASK_NONE, instead of later calling nodes_clear(). This saves
> a line of code.
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>> v3: adjust the commit log a little
>> v2: use NODE_MASK_NONE as suggested by David Hildenbrand
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index ef790dfad6aa..dfcf2682ed40 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -5587,14 +5587,13 @@ static void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>> {
>> static int node_order[MAX_NUMNODES];
>> int node, load, nr_nodes = 0;
>> - nodemask_t used_mask;
>> + nodemask_t used_mask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> int local_node, prev_node;
>>
>> /* NUMA-aware ordering of nodes */
>> local_node = pgdat->node_id;
>> load = nr_online_nodes;
>> prev_node = local_node;
>> - nodes_clear(used_mask);
>>
>> memset(node_order, 0, sizeof(node_order));
>> while ((node = find_next_best_node(local_node, &used_mask)) >= 0) {
>>
>
> Honestly, I don't think it's really worth doing a patch for this, but
> there's nothing wrong with the diff, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <[email protected]>

With the changed subject/description

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>


--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb