Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm/vmscan: use node_is_toptier helper in node_reclaim

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022, Ying Huang wrote:

> On Tue, 2022-05-31 at 17:20 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > We have helpers for a reason.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Davidlohr