Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm,slub: Do not special case N_NORMAL nodes for slab_nodes

[Oscar Salvador]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:17:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Feel free to add a Suggested-by: if you think it applies.

Sorry David, my bad, totally missed it.
I shall add it.

> Do we have to take care of the N_NORMAL_MEMORY check in kmem_cache_init() ? Likely it
> would have to be a N_MEMORY check.

Yes, should be N_MEMORY.

> But, I was wondering if we could get rid of the "slab_nodes" thingy as a first step?

I glanced over it and I did not see anything wrong with it, just a
question below.

So, if Vlastimil and Harry think this is fine, we can indeed do this.
If so, I would combine this and the #1 first of this series and add
your Signed-off-by as co-autor. Is that fine by you?


> @@ -3706,10 +3698,9 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>  	if (!slab) {
>  		/*
>  		 * if the node is not online or has no normal memory, just
> -		 * ignore the node constraint
> +		 * ignore the node constraint.
>  		 */
> -		if (unlikely(node != NUMA_NO_NODE &&
> -			     !node_isset(node, slab_nodes)))
> +		if (unlikely(node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_state(node, N_NORMAL_MEMORY)))
>  			node = NUMA_NO_NODE;

After my first patch, slab_nodes will also contain N_MEMORY nodes, which
makes me think whether that check should be N_MEMORY?



-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs