Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-72176-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:21:30 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aneesh Kumar
 <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Ben Widawsky
 <ben.widawsky@intel.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Michal Hocko
 <mhocko@kernel.org>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel
 <riel@surriel.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Matthew Wilcox
 <willy@infradead.org>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, Vlastimil
 Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Hugh
 Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, Suren
 Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Use the already fetched local
 variable
Message-Id: <20240219172130.82a16c1ebecbf8ba86a8987d@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <63a0f7c4-3c3f-4097-9a24-d1e3fc7b6030@linux.ibm.com>
References: <9c3f7b743477560d1c5b12b8c111a584a2cc92ee.1708097962.git.donettom@linux.ibm.com>
	<20240218133851.22c22b55460e866a099be5ce@linux-foundation.org>
	<63a0f7c4-3c3f-4097-9a24-d1e3fc7b6030@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:04:23 +0530 Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> >> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> >> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> >> @@ -2526,7 +2526,7 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>   		if (node_isset(curnid, pol->nodes))
> >>   			goto out;
> >>   		z = first_zones_zonelist(
> >> -				node_zonelist(numa_node_id(), GFP_HIGHUSER),
> >> +				node_zonelist(thisnid, GFP_HIGHUSER),
> >>   				gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER),
> >>   				&pol->nodes);
> >>   		polnid = zone_to_nid(z->zone);
> > 	int thisnid = cpu_to_node(thiscpu);
> >
> > Is there any dofference between numa_node_id() and
> > cpu_to_node(raw_smp_processor_id())?  And it it explicable that we're
> > using one here and not the other?
> 
> Hi Andrew
> 
> Both numa_node_id() and cpu_to_node(raw_smp_processor_id()) return the current execution node id,
> Since the current execution node is already fetched at the beginning (thisnid) we can reuse it instead of getting it again.

Sure, but mine was a broader thought: why do we have both?  Is one
preferable and if so why?