Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230615142016.419570-1-zhiguangni01@gmail.com>
 <20230615170011.GK52412@kernel.org> <CACZJ9cVxqeDooeAMi8HBFmeo_85E+NuMYbW9PCvp7Rm-wunOGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230618070850.GY52412@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230618070850.GY52412@kernel.org>
From:   Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:30:36 +0800
Message-ID: <CACZJ9cVSxsOcGJwxEWaMs3Wtt0XHij5OiYq+uWvC7UQZApNGdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,NUMA:Get the number of ram pages directly in numa_meminfo_cover_memory()
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc:     dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 06:47:11PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 01:00, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:20:16AM +1000, Liam Ni wrote:
> > > > In a previous implementation,The ram page is calculated
> > > > by counting the number of holes,
> > > > however,the number of ram pages is calculated during hole calculation.
> > > > Therefore,we can directly calculate the amount of ram pages.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/mm/numa.c |  4 ++--
> > > >  include/linux/mm.h |  4 ++++
> > > >  mm/mm_init.c       | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > > index 2aadb2019b4f..8ea0e956e3d7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> > > > @@ -461,12 +461,12 @@ static bool __init numa_meminfo_cover_memory(const struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > > >               u64 s = mi->blk[i].start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >               u64 e = mi->blk[i].end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >               numaram += e - s;
> > > > -             numaram -= __absent_pages_in_range(mi->blk[i].nid, s, e);
> > > > +             numaram += __available_pages_in_range(mi->blk[i].nid, s, e);
> > >
> > > This is wrong. You add number of pages in range core MM sees to the number
> > > of pages covered by the numa_meminfo.
> > >
> > > More generally, rather than traverse all the numa_meminfo's and for each of
> > > them traverse all the regions in memblock.memory it's enough to count
> > > memory in memblock that doesn't have the node assigned and compare it to
> > > memblock_phys_mem_size().
> >
> > Logic like below?
> > static bool __init numa_meminfo_cover_memory(const struct numa_meminfo *mi)
> > {
> >    u64 error_value;
> >    error_value = pages_without_nid_in_range(0,max_pfn);
> >     if ((error_value ) >= (1 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT))) {
> >         //print error information
> >         return false;
> >      }
> >      return true;
> > }
> >
> > I can't figure out why compare it with memblock_phys_mem_size().
> > The number of pages in memblock that doesn't have the node
> > assigned,which also means that these pages are not in numa_info.
> > So these pages can represent the number of lose pages.
>
> Yes, there is no need to compare with memblock_phys_mem_size() if you count
> pages that don't have nid set in memblock.

Got it,i will send V2.

Liam.
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.