Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <61c47f98b4c0be1d5da5e097779412f9edd70753.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm/vmscan: use node_is_toptier helper in
 node_reclaim
From:   Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
Cc:     mhocko@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com,
        yosryahmed@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, shakeelb@google.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, gthelen@google.com,
        a.manzanares@samsung.com, heekwon.p@samsung.com,
        gim.jongmin@samsung.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 01 Jun 2022 14:12:22 +0800
In-Reply-To: <87h755dip9.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20220416053902.68517-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
         <20220416053902.68517-3-dave@stgolabs.net> <87h755dip9.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-05-31 at 17:20 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:
> 
> > We have helpers for a reason.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> >  	 * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations
> >  	 * as wide as possible.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id())
> > +	if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id())
> >  		return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN;
> >  
> > 
> >  	if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags))
> 
> 
> Are we really looking at the top tier in a tiered memory hierarchy here?
> The comment seems to suggest we are looking at local NUMA node?

The code change itself is correct.  But it is an implementation details
that node_is_toptier() == node_state(, N_CPU).  And after we supporting
more memory tiers (like GPU, HBM), we will change the implementation of
node_is_toptier() soon.   So I think that it's better to keep the
original code.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying