[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Zhen Lei]

v7 -> v8:
Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.

The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.

Hi, Will:
Something should still be clarified:
Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
         "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
         into acpi_numa_init, I think.
         
Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
         1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
         2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.

Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.

Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
          to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

v6 -> v7:
Fix a bug for this patch series when "numa=off" was set in bootargs, this
modification only impact patch 12.

Please refer https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/23/249 for more details.

@@ -119,13 +115,13 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

v5 -> v6:
Move memblk nid check from arch/arm64/mm/numa.c into drivers/of/of_numa.c,
because this check is arch independent.

This modification only related to patch 3, but impacted the contents of patch 7 and 8,
other patches have no change.

v4 -> v5:
This version has no code changes, just add "Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>"
into patches 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14. Because these patches rely on some acpi numa
patches, and the latter had not been upstreamed in 4.7, but upstreamed in 4.8-rc1,
so I resend my patches again.

v3 -> v4:
1. Packed three patches of Kefeng Wang, patch6-8.
2. Add 6 new patches(9-15) to enhance the numa on arm64.

v2 -> v3:
1. Adjust patch2 and patch5 according to Matthias Brugger's advice, to make the
   patches looks more well. The final code have no change. 

v1 -> v2:
1. Base on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
2. Rewrote of_numa_parse_memory_nodes according to Rob Herring's advice. So that it looks more clear.
3. Rewrote patch 5 because some scenes were not considered before.

Kefeng Wang (3):
  of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code
  of_numa: Use pr_fmt()
  arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

Zhen Lei (13):
  of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information
  of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block
  of/numa: add nid check for memory block
  of/numa: remove a duplicated warning
  arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
  mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
  arm64/numa: remove some useless code
  arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0
  of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt |  12 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                         |  12 ++
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h              |   1 -
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c              |   4 +-
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c                    |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c                       | 190 ++++++++++++++---------------
 drivers/of/of_numa.c                       |  88 +++++++------
 include/linux/memblock.h                   |   1 +
 mm/memblock.c                              |  28 +++++
 9 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Zhen Lei]

v7 -> v8:
Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.

The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.

Hi, Will:
Something should still be clarified:
Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
         "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
         into acpi_numa_init, I think.
         
Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
         1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
         2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.

Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.

Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
          to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

v6 -> v7:
Fix a bug for this patch series when "numa=off" was set in bootargs, this
modification only impact patch 12.

Please refer https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/23/249 for more details.

@@ -119,13 +115,13 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

v5 -> v6:
Move memblk nid check from arch/arm64/mm/numa.c into drivers/of/of_numa.c,
because this check is arch independent.

This modification only related to patch 3, but impacted the contents of patch 7 and 8,
other patches have no change.

v4 -> v5:
This version has no code changes, just add "Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>"
into patches 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14. Because these patches rely on some acpi numa
patches, and the latter had not been upstreamed in 4.7, but upstreamed in 4.8-rc1,
so I resend my patches again.

v3 -> v4:
1. Packed three patches of Kefeng Wang, patch6-8.
2. Add 6 new patches(9-15) to enhance the numa on arm64.

v2 -> v3:
1. Adjust patch2 and patch5 according to Matthias Brugger's advice, to make the
   patches looks more well. The final code have no change. 

v1 -> v2:
1. Base on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
2. Rewrote of_numa_parse_memory_nodes according to Rob Herring's advice. So that it looks more clear.
3. Rewrote patch 5 because some scenes were not considered before.

Kefeng Wang (3):
  of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code
  of_numa: Use pr_fmt()
  arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

Zhen Lei (13):
  of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information
  of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block
  of/numa: add nid check for memory block
  of/numa: remove a duplicated warning
  arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
  mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
  arm64/numa: remove some useless code
  arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0
  of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt |  12 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                         |  12 ++
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h              |   1 -
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c              |   4 +-
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c                    |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c                       | 190 ++++++++++++++---------------
 drivers/of/of_numa.c                       |  88 +++++++------
 include/linux/memblock.h                   |   1 +
 mm/memblock.c                              |  28 +++++
 9 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Zhen Lei]

v7 -> v8:
Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.

The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.

Hi, Will:
Something should still be clarified:
Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
         "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
         into acpi_numa_init, I think.
         
Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
         1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
         2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.

Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.

Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
          to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

v6 -> v7:
Fix a bug for this patch series when "numa=off" was set in bootargs, this
modification only impact patch 12.

Please refer https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/23/249 for more details.

@@ -119,13 +115,13 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

v5 -> v6:
Move memblk nid check from arch/arm64/mm/numa.c into drivers/of/of_numa.c,
because this check is arch independent.

This modification only related to patch 3, but impacted the contents of patch 7 and 8,
other patches have no change.

v4 -> v5:
This version has no code changes, just add "Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>"
into patches 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14. Because these patches rely on some acpi numa
patches, and the latter had not been upstreamed in 4.7, but upstreamed in 4.8-rc1,
so I resend my patches again.

v3 -> v4:
1. Packed three patches of Kefeng Wang, patch6-8.
2. Add 6 new patches(9-15) to enhance the numa on arm64.

v2 -> v3:
1. Adjust patch2 and patch5 according to Matthias Brugger's advice, to make the
   patches looks more well. The final code have no change. 

v1 -> v2:
1. Base on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
2. Rewrote of_numa_parse_memory_nodes according to Rob Herring's advice. So that it looks more clear.
3. Rewrote patch 5 because some scenes were not considered before.

Kefeng Wang (3):
  of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code
  of_numa: Use pr_fmt()
  arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

Zhen Lei (13):
  of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information
  of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block
  of/numa: add nid check for memory block
  of/numa: remove a duplicated warning
  arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
  mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
  arm64/numa: remove some useless code
  arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0
  of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt |  12 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                         |  12 ++
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h              |   1 -
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c              |   4 +-
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c                    |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c                       | 190 ++++++++++++++---------------
 drivers/of/of_numa.c                       |  88 +++++++------
 include/linux/memblock.h                   |   1 +
 mm/memblock.c                              |  28 +++++
 9 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Zhen Lei]

v7 -> v8:
Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.

The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.

Hi, Will:
Something should still be clarified:
Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
         "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
         into acpi_numa_init, I think.
         
Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
         1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
         2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.

Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.

Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
          to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

v6 -> v7:
Fix a bug for this patch series when "numa=off" was set in bootargs, this
modification only impact patch 12.

Please refer https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/23/249 for more details.

@@ -119,13 +115,13 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

v5 -> v6:
Move memblk nid check from arch/arm64/mm/numa.c into drivers/of/of_numa.c,
because this check is arch independent.

This modification only related to patch 3, but impacted the contents of patch 7 and 8,
other patches have no change.

v4 -> v5:
This version has no code changes, just add "Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>"
into patches 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14. Because these patches rely on some acpi numa
patches, and the latter had not been upstreamed in 4.7, but upstreamed in 4.8-rc1,
so I resend my patches again.

v3 -> v4:
1. Packed three patches of Kefeng Wang, patch6-8.
2. Add 6 new patches(9-15) to enhance the numa on arm64.

v2 -> v3:
1. Adjust patch2 and patch5 according to Matthias Brugger's advice, to make the
   patches looks more well. The final code have no change. 

v1 -> v2:
1. Base on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
2. Rewrote of_numa_parse_memory_nodes according to Rob Herring's advice. So that it looks more clear.
3. Rewrote patch 5 because some scenes were not considered before.

Kefeng Wang (3):
  of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code
  of_numa: Use pr_fmt()
  arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

Zhen Lei (13):
  of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information
  of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block
  of/numa: add nid check for memory block
  of/numa: remove a duplicated warning
  arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
  mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid
  arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
  arm64/numa: remove some useless code
  arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0
  of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs
  arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt |  12 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                         |  12 ++
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h              |   1 -
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c              |   4 +-
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c                    |   1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c                       | 190 ++++++++++++++---------------
 drivers/of/of_numa.c                       |  88 +++++++------
 include/linux/memblock.h                   |   1 +
 mm/memblock.c                              |  28 +++++
 9 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 01/16] of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information

[Zhen Lei]

This information will be printed in the subfunction numa_add_memblk.
They are not the same, but very similar.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index ed5a097..fb71b4e 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -88,10 +88,6 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			break;
 		}

-		pr_debug("NUMA:  base = %llx len = %llx, node = %u\n",
-			 rsrc.start, rsrc.end - rsrc.start + 1, nid);
-
-
 		r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);
 		if (r)
 			break;
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 01/16] of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information

[Zhen Lei]

This information will be printed in the subfunction numa_add_memblk.
They are not the same, but very similar.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index ed5a097..fb71b4e 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -88,10 +88,6 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			break;
 		}

-		pr_debug("NUMA:  base = %llx len = %llx, node = %u\n",
-			 rsrc.start, rsrc.end - rsrc.start + 1, nid);
-
-
 		r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);
 		if (r)
 			break;
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 01/16] of/numa: remove a duplicated pr_debug information

[Zhen Lei]

This information will be printed in the subfunction numa_add_memblk.
They are not the same, but very similar.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index ed5a097..fb71b4e 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -88,10 +88,6 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			break;
 		}

-		pr_debug("NUMA:  base = %llx len = %llx, node = %u\n",
-			 rsrc.start, rsrc.end - rsrc.start + 1, nid);
-
-
 		r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);
 		if (r)
 			break;
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 02/16] of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block

[Zhen Lei]

For a normal memory@ devicetree node, its reg property can contains more
memory blocks.

Because we don't known how many memory blocks maybe contained, so we try
from index=0, increase 1 until error returned(the end).

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index fb71b4e..7b3fbdc 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -63,13 +63,9 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 	struct device_node *np = NULL;
 	struct resource rsrc;
 	u32 nid;
-	int r = 0;
-
-	for (;;) {
-		np = of_find_node_by_type(np, "memory");
-		if (!np)
-			break;
+	int i, r;

+	for_each_node_by_type(np, "memory") {
 		r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
 		if (r == -EINVAL)
 			/*
@@ -78,23 +74,18 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			 * "numa-node-id" property
 			 */
 			continue;
-		else if (r)
-			/* some other error */
-			break;

-		r = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &rsrc);
-		if (r) {
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad reg property in memory node\n");
-			break;
-		}
+		for (i = 0; !r && !of_address_to_resource(np, i, &rsrc); i++)
+			r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);

-		r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);
-		if (r)
-			break;
+		if (!i || r) {
+			of_node_put(np);
+			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			return r ? : -EINVAL;
+		}
 	}
-	of_node_put(np);

-	return r;
+	return 0;
 }

 static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 02/16] of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block

[Zhen Lei]

For a normal memory@ devicetree node, its reg property can contains more
memory blocks.

Because we don't known how many memory blocks maybe contained, so we try
from index=0, increase 1 until error returned(the end).

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index fb71b4e..7b3fbdc 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -63,13 +63,9 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 	struct device_node *np = NULL;
 	struct resource rsrc;
 	u32 nid;
-	int r = 0;
-
-	for (;;) {
-		np = of_find_node_by_type(np, "memory");
-		if (!np)
-			break;
+	int i, r;

+	for_each_node_by_type(np, "memory") {
 		r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
 		if (r == -EINVAL)
 			/*
@@ -78,23 +74,18 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			 * "numa-node-id" property
 			 */
 			continue;
-		else if (r)
-			/* some other error */
-			break;

-		r = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &rsrc);
-		if (r) {
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad reg property in memory node\n");
-			break;
-		}
+		for (i = 0; !r && !of_address_to_resource(np, i, &rsrc); i++)
+			r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);

-		r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);
-		if (r)
-			break;
+		if (!i || r) {
+			of_node_put(np);
+			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			return r ? : -EINVAL;
+		}
 	}
-	of_node_put(np);

-	return r;
+	return 0;
 }

 static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 02/16] of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one memory block

[Zhen Lei]

For a normal memory@ devicetree node, its reg property can contains more
memory blocks.

Because we don't known how many memory blocks maybe contained, so we try
from index=0, increase 1 until error returned(the end).

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index fb71b4e..7b3fbdc 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -63,13 +63,9 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 	struct device_node *np = NULL;
 	struct resource rsrc;
 	u32 nid;
-	int r = 0;
-
-	for (;;) {
-		np = of_find_node_by_type(np, "memory");
-		if (!np)
-			break;
+	int i, r;

+	for_each_node_by_type(np, "memory") {
 		r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
 		if (r == -EINVAL)
 			/*
@@ -78,23 +74,18 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			 * "numa-node-id" property
 			 */
 			continue;
-		else if (r)
-			/* some other error */
-			break;

-		r = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &rsrc);
-		if (r) {
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad reg property in memory node\n");
-			break;
-		}
+		for (i = 0; !r && !of_address_to_resource(np, i, &rsrc); i++)
+			r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);

-		r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);
-		if (r)
-			break;
+		if (!i || r) {
+			of_node_put(np);
+			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			return r ? : -EINVAL;
+		}
 	}
-	of_node_put(np);

-	return r;
+	return 0;
 }

 static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Zhen Lei]

If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			 */
 			continue;

+		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			r = -EINVAL;
+		}
+
 		for (i = 0; !r && !of_address_to_resource(np, i, &rsrc); i++)
 			r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Zhen Lei]

If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			 */
 			continue;

+		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			r = -EINVAL;
+		}
+
 		for (i = 0; !r && !of_address_to_resource(np, i, &rsrc); i++)
 			r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Zhen Lei]

If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			 */
 			continue;

+		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
+			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			r = -EINVAL;
+		}
+
 		for (i = 0; !r && !of_address_to_resource(np, i, &rsrc); i++)
 			r = numa_add_memblk(nid, rsrc.start, rsrc.end + 1);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 04/16] of/numa: remove a duplicated warning

[Zhen Lei]

This warning has been printed in of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes before.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 9 ++-------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index c1bd62c..625b057 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -179,13 +179,8 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

-	if (!r) {
-		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
-		else
-			return nid;
-	}
+	if (!r)
+		return nid;

 	return NUMA_NO_NODE;
 }
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 04/16] of/numa: remove a duplicated warning

[Zhen Lei]

This warning has been printed in of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes before.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 9 ++-------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index c1bd62c..625b057 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -179,13 +179,8 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

-	if (!r) {
-		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
-		else
-			return nid;
-	}
+	if (!r)
+		return nid;

 	return NUMA_NO_NODE;
 }
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 04/16] of/numa: remove a duplicated warning

[Zhen Lei]

This warning has been printed in of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes before.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 9 ++-------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index c1bd62c..625b057 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -179,13 +179,8 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

-	if (!r) {
-		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
-		else
-			return nid;
-	}
+	if (!r)
+		return nid;

 	return NUMA_NO_NODE;
 }
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 05/16] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Zhen Lei]

numa_init may return error because of numa configuration error. So "No
NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific configuration
error information should be immediately printed by the testing branch.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 4 +++-
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c          | 6 +++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
index f85149c..f01fab6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
@@ -105,8 +105,10 @@ int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
 	int ret;

 	ret = acpi_numa_init();
-	if (ret)
+	if (ret) {
+		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
 		return ret;
+	}

 	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
 	if (ret < 0)
 		return ret;

-	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
+	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
+		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
+	}

 	ret = numa_register_nodes();
 	if (ret < 0)
@@ -367,8 +369,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	else
-		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
 	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 05/16] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Zhen Lei]

numa_init may return error because of numa configuration error. So "No
NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific configuration
error information should be immediately printed by the testing branch.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 4 +++-
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c          | 6 +++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
index f85149c..f01fab6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
@@ -105,8 +105,10 @@ int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
 	int ret;

 	ret = acpi_numa_init();
-	if (ret)
+	if (ret) {
+		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
 		return ret;
+	}

 	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
 	if (ret < 0)
 		return ret;

-	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
+	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
+		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
+	}

 	ret = numa_register_nodes();
 	if (ret < 0)
@@ -367,8 +369,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	else
-		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
 	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 05/16] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Zhen Lei]

numa_init may return error because of numa configuration error. So "No
NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific configuration
error information should be immediately printed by the testing branch.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 4 +++-
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c          | 6 +++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
index f85149c..f01fab6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
@@ -105,8 +105,10 @@ int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
 	int ret;

 	ret = acpi_numa_init();
-	if (ret)
+	if (ret) {
+		pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
 		return ret;
+	}

 	return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
 	if (ret < 0)
 		return ret;

-	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
+	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
+		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
+	}

 	ret = numa_register_nodes();
 	if (ret < 0)
@@ -367,8 +369,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	else
-		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node@[mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
 	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 06/16] of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use of_get_next_parent() instead of open-code.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 625b057..0d7459b 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -158,8 +158,6 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 	np = of_node_get(device);

 	while (np) {
-		struct device_node *parent;
-
 		r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
 		/*
 		 * -EINVAL indicates the property was not found, and
@@ -170,9 +168,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		if (r != -EINVAL)
 			break;

-		parent = of_get_parent(np);
-		of_node_put(np);
-		np = parent;
+		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
 		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 06/16] of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use of_get_next_parent() instead of open-code.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 625b057..0d7459b 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -158,8 +158,6 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 	np = of_node_get(device);

 	while (np) {
-		struct device_node *parent;
-
 		r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
 		/*
 		 * -EINVAL indicates the property was not found, and
@@ -170,9 +168,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		if (r != -EINVAL)
 			break;

-		parent = of_get_parent(np);
-		of_node_put(np);
-		np = parent;
+		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
 		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 06/16] of_numa: Use of_get_next_parent to simplify code

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use of_get_next_parent() instead of open-code.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 625b057..0d7459b 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -158,8 +158,6 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 	np = of_node_get(device);

 	while (np) {
-		struct device_node *parent;
-
 		r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
 		/*
 		 * -EINVAL indicates the property was not found, and
@@ -170,9 +168,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		if (r != -EINVAL)
 			break;

-		parent = of_get_parent(np);
-		of_node_put(np);
-		np = parent;
+		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
 		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 07/16] of_numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 0d7459b..f63d4b0d 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "OF: NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/of_address.h>
 #include <linux/nodemask.h>
@@ -49,10 +51,9 @@ static void __init of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes(void)
 		if (r)
 			continue;

-		pr_debug("NUMA: CPU on %u\n", nid);
+		pr_debug("CPU on %u\n", nid);
 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 		else
 			node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
 	}
@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			continue;

 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 			r = -EINVAL;
 		}

@@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)

 		if (!i || r) {
 			of_node_put(np);
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			pr_err("bad property in memory node\n");
 			return r ? : -EINVAL;
 		}
 	}
@@ -99,17 +100,17 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 	int entry_count;
 	int i;

-	pr_info("NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");
+	pr_info("parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");

 	matrix = of_get_property(map, "distance-matrix", NULL);
 	if (!matrix) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
+		pr_err("No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

 	entry_count = of_property_count_u32_elems(map, "distance-matrix");
 	if (entry_count <= 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: Invalid distance-matrix\n");
+		pr_err("Invalid distance-matrix\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		matrix++;

 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
-		pr_debug("NUMA:  distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
+		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);

 		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
@@ -171,7 +172,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
-		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
+		pr_warn("Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 07/16] of_numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 0d7459b..f63d4b0d 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "OF: NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/of_address.h>
 #include <linux/nodemask.h>
@@ -49,10 +51,9 @@ static void __init of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes(void)
 		if (r)
 			continue;

-		pr_debug("NUMA: CPU on %u\n", nid);
+		pr_debug("CPU on %u\n", nid);
 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 		else
 			node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
 	}
@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			continue;

 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 			r = -EINVAL;
 		}

@@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)

 		if (!i || r) {
 			of_node_put(np);
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			pr_err("bad property in memory node\n");
 			return r ? : -EINVAL;
 		}
 	}
@@ -99,17 +100,17 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 	int entry_count;
 	int i;

-	pr_info("NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");
+	pr_info("parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");

 	matrix = of_get_property(map, "distance-matrix", NULL);
 	if (!matrix) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
+		pr_err("No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

 	entry_count = of_property_count_u32_elems(map, "distance-matrix");
 	if (entry_count <= 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: Invalid distance-matrix\n");
+		pr_err("Invalid distance-matrix\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		matrix++;

 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
-		pr_debug("NUMA:  distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
+		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);

 		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
@@ -171,7 +172,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
-		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
+		pr_warn("Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH v8 07/16] of_numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 0d7459b..f63d4b0d 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "OF: NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/of_address.h>
 #include <linux/nodemask.h>
@@ -49,10 +51,9 @@ static void __init of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes(void)
 		if (r)
 			continue;

-		pr_debug("NUMA: CPU on %u\n", nid);
+		pr_debug("CPU on %u\n", nid);
 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 		else
 			node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
 	}
@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			continue;

 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 			r = -EINVAL;
 		}

@@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)

 		if (!i || r) {
 			of_node_put(np);
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			pr_err("bad property in memory node\n");
 			return r ? : -EINVAL;
 		}
 	}
@@ -99,17 +100,17 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 	int entry_count;
 	int i;

-	pr_info("NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");
+	pr_info("parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");

 	matrix = of_get_property(map, "distance-matrix", NULL);
 	if (!matrix) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
+		pr_err("No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

 	entry_count = of_property_count_u32_elems(map, "distance-matrix");
 	if (entry_count <= 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: Invalid distance-matrix\n");
+		pr_err("Invalid distance-matrix\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		matrix++;

 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
-		pr_debug("NUMA:  distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
+		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);

 		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
@@ -171,7 +172,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
-		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
+		pr_warn("Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 07/16] of_numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index 0d7459b..f63d4b0d 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "OF: NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/of.h>
 #include <linux/of_address.h>
 #include <linux/nodemask.h>
@@ -49,10 +51,9 @@ static void __init of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes(void)
 		if (r)
 			continue;

-		pr_debug("NUMA: CPU on %u\n", nid);
+		pr_debug("CPU on %u\n", nid);
 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n",
-				nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 		else
 			node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
 	}
@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
 			continue;

 		if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
+			pr_warn("Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);
 			r = -EINVAL;
 		}

@@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)

 		if (!i || r) {
 			of_node_put(np);
-			pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
+			pr_err("bad property in memory node\n");
 			return r ? : -EINVAL;
 		}
 	}
@@ -99,17 +100,17 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 	int entry_count;
 	int i;

-	pr_info("NUMA: parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");
+	pr_info("parsing numa-distance-map-v1\n");

 	matrix = of_get_property(map, "distance-matrix", NULL);
 	if (!matrix) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
+		pr_err("No distance-matrix property in distance-map\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

 	entry_count = of_property_count_u32_elems(map, "distance-matrix");
 	if (entry_count <= 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: Invalid distance-matrix\n");
+		pr_err("Invalid distance-matrix\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		matrix++;

 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
-		pr_debug("NUMA:  distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
+		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);

 		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
@@ -171,7 +172,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device)
 		np = of_get_next_parent(np);
 	}
 	if (np && r)
-		pr_warn("NUMA: Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
+		pr_warn("Invalid \"numa-node-id\" property in node %s\n",
 			np->name);
 	of_node_put(np);

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 08/16] arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output, and remove duplicated msg
of NUMA turned off.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index d97c6e2..0e75b53 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/acpi.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
 #include <linux/memblock.h>
@@ -38,10 +40,9 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
 {
 	if (!opt)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-		pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+	if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3))
 		numa_off = true;
-	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 early_param("numa", numa_parse_early_param);
@@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);

 	/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-	pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+	pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }

 /*
@@ -145,13 +146,13 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 end)

 	ret = memblock_set_node(start, (end - start), &memblock.memory, nid);
 	if (ret < 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+		pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
 			start, (end - 1), nid);
 		return ret;
 	}

 	node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-	pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+	pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
 			start, (end - 1), nid);
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -166,19 +167,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	void *nd;
 	int tnid;

-	pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-			nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-			(end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

 	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);

 	/* report and initialize */
-	pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+	pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 		nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
 	tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 	if (tnid != nid)
-		pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+		pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

 	node_data[nid] = nd;
 	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -235,8 +235,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 			numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
 				LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;

-	pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-			numa_distance_cnt);
+	pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);

 	return 0;
 }
@@ -257,20 +256,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
 	if (!numa_distance) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
 		return;
 	}

 	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
 			from < 0 || to < 0) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			    from, to, distance);
 		return;
 	}

 	if ((u8)distance != distance ||
 	    (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: invalid distance parameter, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: invalid distance parameter, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			     from, to, distance);
 		return;
 	}
@@ -297,7 +296,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
 	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk)
 		if (mblk->nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk->nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 				mblk->nid, mblk->base,
 				mblk->base + mblk->size - 1);
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -369,8 +368,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
-	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
+	pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
+		0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

 	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk) {
 		ret = numa_add_memblk(0, mblk->base, mblk->base + mblk->size);
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 08/16] arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output, and remove duplicated msg
of NUMA turned off.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index d97c6e2..0e75b53 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/acpi.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
 #include <linux/memblock.h>
@@ -38,10 +40,9 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
 {
 	if (!opt)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-		pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+	if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3))
 		numa_off = true;
-	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 early_param("numa", numa_parse_early_param);
@@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);

 	/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-	pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+	pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }

 /*
@@ -145,13 +146,13 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 end)

 	ret = memblock_set_node(start, (end - start), &memblock.memory, nid);
 	if (ret < 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+		pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
 			start, (end - 1), nid);
 		return ret;
 	}

 	node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-	pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+	pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
 			start, (end - 1), nid);
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -166,19 +167,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	void *nd;
 	int tnid;

-	pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-			nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-			(end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

 	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);

 	/* report and initialize */
-	pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+	pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 		nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
 	tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 	if (tnid != nid)
-		pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+		pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

 	node_data[nid] = nd;
 	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -235,8 +235,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 			numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
 				LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;

-	pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-			numa_distance_cnt);
+	pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);

 	return 0;
 }
@@ -257,20 +256,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
 	if (!numa_distance) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
 		return;
 	}

 	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
 			from < 0 || to < 0) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			    from, to, distance);
 		return;
 	}

 	if ((u8)distance != distance ||
 	    (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: invalid distance parameter, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: invalid distance parameter, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			     from, to, distance);
 		return;
 	}
@@ -297,7 +296,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
 	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk)
 		if (mblk->nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk->nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 				mblk->nid, mblk->base,
 				mblk->base + mblk->size - 1);
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -369,8 +368,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
-	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
+	pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
+		0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

 	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk) {
 		ret = numa_add_memblk(0, mblk->base, mblk->base + mblk->size);
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 08/16] arm64: numa: Use pr_fmt()

[Zhen Lei]

From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>

Use pr_fmt to prefix kernel output, and remove duplicated msg
of NUMA turned off.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index d97c6e2..0e75b53 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
  */

+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "NUMA: " fmt
+
 #include <linux/acpi.h>
 #include <linux/bootmem.h>
 #include <linux/memblock.h>
@@ -38,10 +40,9 @@ static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
 {
 	if (!opt)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3)) {
-		pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA turned off");
+	if (!strncmp(opt, "off", 3))
 		numa_off = true;
-	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 early_param("numa", numa_parse_early_param);
@@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);

 	/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
-	pr_debug("NUMA: Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
+	pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }

 /*
@@ -145,13 +146,13 @@ int __init numa_add_memblk(int nid, u64 start, u64 end)

 	ret = memblock_set_node(start, (end - start), &memblock.memory, nid);
 	if (ret < 0) {
-		pr_err("NUMA: memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
+		pr_err("memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] failed to add on node %d\n",
 			start, (end - 1), nid);
 		return ret;
 	}

 	node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed);
-	pr_info("NUMA: Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
+	pr_info("Adding memblock [0x%llx - 0x%llx] on node %d\n",
 			start, (end - 1), nid);
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -166,19 +167,18 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	void *nd;
 	int tnid;

-	pr_info("NUMA: Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
-			nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
-			(end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
+	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

 	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);

 	/* report and initialize */
-	pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+	pr_info("NODE_DATA [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 		nd_pa, nd_pa + nd_size - 1);
 	tnid = early_pfn_to_nid(nd_pa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 	if (tnid != nid)
-		pr_info("NUMA: NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);
+		pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

 	node_data[nid] = nd;
 	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
@@ -235,8 +235,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 			numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
 				LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;

-	pr_debug("NUMA: Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n",
-			numa_distance_cnt);
+	pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);

 	return 0;
 }
@@ -257,20 +256,20 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
 	if (!numa_distance) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
 		return;
 	}

 	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
 			from < 0 || to < 0) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			    from, to, distance);
 		return;
 	}

 	if ((u8)distance != distance ||
 	    (from == to && distance != LOCAL_DISTANCE)) {
-		pr_warn_once("NUMA: Warning: invalid distance parameter, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
+		pr_warn_once("Warning: invalid distance parameter, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			     from, to, distance);
 		return;
 	}
@@ -297,7 +296,7 @@ static int __init numa_register_nodes(void)
 	/* Check that valid nid is set to memblks */
 	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk)
 		if (mblk->nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || mblk->nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
-			pr_warn("NUMA: Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
+			pr_warn("Warning: invalid memblk node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 				mblk->nid, mblk->base,
 				mblk->base + mblk->size - 1);
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -369,8 +368,8 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
-	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
+	pr_info("Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
+		0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

 	for_each_memblock(memory, mblk) {
 		ret = numa_add_memblk(0, mblk->base, mblk->base + mblk->size);
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 09/16] arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA

[Zhen Lei]

To make each percpu area allocated from its local numa node. Without this
patch, all percpu areas will be allocated from the node which cpu0 belongs
to.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  8 ++++++++
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index bc3f00f..2815af6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -603,6 +603,14 @@ config USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID
 	def_bool y
 	depends on NUMA

+config HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
+config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
 source kernel/Kconfig.preempt
 source kernel/Kconfig.hz

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 0e75b53..087064d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
 #include <linux/of.h>

 #include <asm/acpi.h>
+#include <asm/sections.h>

 struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly;
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data);
@@ -131,6 +132,57 @@ void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 	cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid;
 }

+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
+unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR_CPUS] __read_mostly;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__per_cpu_offset);
+
+static int __init early_cpu_to_node(int cpu)
+{
+	return cpu_to_node_map[cpu];
+}
+
+static int __init pcpu_cpu_distance(unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
+{
+	return node_distance(from, to);
+}
+
+static void * __init pcpu_fc_alloc(unsigned int cpu, size_t size,
+				       size_t align)
+{
+	int nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
+
+	return  memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(size, align,
+			__pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS), MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
+}
+
+static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
+{
+	memblock_free_early(__pa(ptr), size);
+}
+
+void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
+{
+	unsigned long delta;
+	unsigned int cpu;
+	int rc;
+
+	/*
+	 * Always reserve area for module percpu variables.  That's
+	 * what the legacy allocator did.
+	 */
+	rc = pcpu_embed_first_chunk(PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE,
+				    PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE, PAGE_SIZE,
+				    pcpu_cpu_distance,
+				    pcpu_fc_alloc, pcpu_fc_free);
+	if (rc < 0)
+		panic("Failed to initialize percpu areas.");
+
+	delta = (unsigned long)pcpu_base_addr - (unsigned long)__per_cpu_start;
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		__per_cpu_offset[cpu] = delta + pcpu_unit_offsets[cpu];
+}
+#endif
+
 /**
  * numa_add_memblk - Set node id to memblk
  * @nid: NUMA node ID of the new memblk
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 09/16] arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA

[Zhen Lei]

To make each percpu area allocated from its local numa node. Without this
patch, all percpu areas will be allocated from the node which cpu0 belongs
to.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  8 ++++++++
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index bc3f00f..2815af6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -603,6 +603,14 @@ config USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID
 	def_bool y
 	depends on NUMA

+config HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
+config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
 source kernel/Kconfig.preempt
 source kernel/Kconfig.hz

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 0e75b53..087064d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
 #include <linux/of.h>

 #include <asm/acpi.h>
+#include <asm/sections.h>

 struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly;
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data);
@@ -131,6 +132,57 @@ void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 	cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid;
 }

+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
+unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR_CPUS] __read_mostly;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__per_cpu_offset);
+
+static int __init early_cpu_to_node(int cpu)
+{
+	return cpu_to_node_map[cpu];
+}
+
+static int __init pcpu_cpu_distance(unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
+{
+	return node_distance(from, to);
+}
+
+static void * __init pcpu_fc_alloc(unsigned int cpu, size_t size,
+				       size_t align)
+{
+	int nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
+
+	return  memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(size, align,
+			__pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS), MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
+}
+
+static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
+{
+	memblock_free_early(__pa(ptr), size);
+}
+
+void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
+{
+	unsigned long delta;
+	unsigned int cpu;
+	int rc;
+
+	/*
+	 * Always reserve area for module percpu variables.  That's
+	 * what the legacy allocator did.
+	 */
+	rc = pcpu_embed_first_chunk(PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE,
+				    PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE, PAGE_SIZE,
+				    pcpu_cpu_distance,
+				    pcpu_fc_alloc, pcpu_fc_free);
+	if (rc < 0)
+		panic("Failed to initialize percpu areas.");
+
+	delta = (unsigned long)pcpu_base_addr - (unsigned long)__per_cpu_start;
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		__per_cpu_offset[cpu] = delta + pcpu_unit_offsets[cpu];
+}
+#endif
+
 /**
  * numa_add_memblk - Set node id to memblk
  * @nid: NUMA node ID of the new memblk
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 09/16] arm64/numa: support HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA

[Zhen Lei]

To make each percpu area allocated from its local numa node. Without this
patch, all percpu areas will be allocated from the node which cpu0 belongs
to.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  8 ++++++++
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index bc3f00f..2815af6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -603,6 +603,14 @@ config USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID
 	def_bool y
 	depends on NUMA

+config HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
+config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
 source kernel/Kconfig.preempt
 source kernel/Kconfig.hz

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 0e75b53..087064d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
 #include <linux/of.h>

 #include <asm/acpi.h>
+#include <asm/sections.h>

 struct pglist_data *node_data[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly;
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data);
@@ -131,6 +132,57 @@ void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 	cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid;
 }

+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
+unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR_CPUS] __read_mostly;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__per_cpu_offset);
+
+static int __init early_cpu_to_node(int cpu)
+{
+	return cpu_to_node_map[cpu];
+}
+
+static int __init pcpu_cpu_distance(unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
+{
+	return node_distance(from, to);
+}
+
+static void * __init pcpu_fc_alloc(unsigned int cpu, size_t size,
+				       size_t align)
+{
+	int nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
+
+	return  memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(size, align,
+			__pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS), MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
+}
+
+static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
+{
+	memblock_free_early(__pa(ptr), size);
+}
+
+void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
+{
+	unsigned long delta;
+	unsigned int cpu;
+	int rc;
+
+	/*
+	 * Always reserve area for module percpu variables.  That's
+	 * what the legacy allocator did.
+	 */
+	rc = pcpu_embed_first_chunk(PERCPU_MODULE_RESERVE,
+				    PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE, PAGE_SIZE,
+				    pcpu_cpu_distance,
+				    pcpu_fc_alloc, pcpu_fc_free);
+	if (rc < 0)
+		panic("Failed to initialize percpu areas.");
+
+	delta = (unsigned long)pcpu_base_addr - (unsigned long)__per_cpu_start;
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
+		__per_cpu_offset[cpu] = delta + pcpu_unit_offsets[cpu];
+}
+#endif
+
 /**
  * numa_add_memblk - Set node id to memblk
  * @nid: NUMA node ID of the new memblk
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Zhen Lei]

If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
to improve performance.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
 mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
--- a/include/linux/memblock.h
+++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
@@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)

 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
+phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);

 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);

diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 483197e..6578fff 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
 	return ret;
 }

+phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
+{
+	int i, best_nid, distance;
+	u64 pa;
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
+
+	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
+
+find_nearest_node:
+	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
+	distance = INT_MAX;
+
+	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
+		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
+			best_nid = i;
+			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
+		}
+
+	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
+	if (!pa) {
+		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
+		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
+		goto find_nearest_node;
+	}
+
+	return pa;
+}
+
 phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
 {
 	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Zhen Lei]

If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
to improve performance.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
 mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
--- a/include/linux/memblock.h
+++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
@@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)

 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
+phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);

 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);

diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 483197e..6578fff 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
 	return ret;
 }

+phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
+{
+	int i, best_nid, distance;
+	u64 pa;
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
+
+	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
+
+find_nearest_node:
+	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
+	distance = INT_MAX;
+
+	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
+		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
+			best_nid = i;
+			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
+		}
+
+	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
+	if (!pa) {
+		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
+		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
+		goto find_nearest_node;
+	}
+
+	return pa;
+}
+
 phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
 {
 	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Zhen Lei]

If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
to improve performance.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
 mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
--- a/include/linux/memblock.h
+++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
@@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)

 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
+phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);

 phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);

diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 483197e..6578fff 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
 	return ret;
 }

+phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
+{
+	int i, best_nid, distance;
+	u64 pa;
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
+
+	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
+
+find_nearest_node:
+	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
+	distance = INT_MAX;
+
+	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
+		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
+			best_nid = i;
+			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
+		}
+
+	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
+	if (!pa) {
+		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
+		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
+		goto find_nearest_node;
+	}
+
+	return pa;
+}
+
 phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
 {
 	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 11/16] arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES

[Zhen Lei]

Some numa nodes may have no memory. For example:
1. cpu0 on node0
2. cpu1 on node1
3. device0 access the momory from node0 and node1 take the same time.

So, we can not simply classify device0 to node0 or node1, but we can
define a node2 which distances to node0 and node1 are the same.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 11 ++++++-----
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 2815af6..3a2b6ed 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -611,6 +611,10 @@ config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
 	def_bool y
 	depends on NUMA

+config HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
 source kernel/Kconfig.preempt
 source kernel/Kconfig.hz

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 087064d..891bdaa 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -149,10 +149,11 @@ static int __init pcpu_cpu_distance(unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
 static void * __init pcpu_fc_alloc(unsigned int cpu, size_t size,
 				       size_t align)
 {
-	int nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
+	phys_addr_t alloc;

-	return  memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(size, align,
-			__pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS), MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
+	alloc = memblock_alloc_near_nid(size, align, early_cpu_to_node(cpu));
+
+	return phys_to_virt(alloc);
 }

 static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
@@ -222,7 +223,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

-	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_near_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);

 	/* report and initialize */
@@ -232,7 +233,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	if (tnid != nid)
 		pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

-	node_data[nid] = nd;
+	NODE_DATA(nid) = nd;
 	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id = nid;
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn = start_pfn;
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 11/16] arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES

[Zhen Lei]

Some numa nodes may have no memory. For example:
1. cpu0 on node0
2. cpu1 on node1
3. device0 access the momory from node0 and node1 take the same time.

So, we can not simply classify device0 to node0 or node1, but we can
define a node2 which distances to node0 and node1 are the same.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 11 ++++++-----
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 2815af6..3a2b6ed 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -611,6 +611,10 @@ config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
 	def_bool y
 	depends on NUMA

+config HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
 source kernel/Kconfig.preempt
 source kernel/Kconfig.hz

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 087064d..891bdaa 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -149,10 +149,11 @@ static int __init pcpu_cpu_distance(unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
 static void * __init pcpu_fc_alloc(unsigned int cpu, size_t size,
 				       size_t align)
 {
-	int nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
+	phys_addr_t alloc;

-	return  memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(size, align,
-			__pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS), MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
+	alloc = memblock_alloc_near_nid(size, align, early_cpu_to_node(cpu));
+
+	return phys_to_virt(alloc);
 }

 static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
@@ -222,7 +223,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

-	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_near_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);

 	/* report and initialize */
@@ -232,7 +233,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	if (tnid != nid)
 		pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

-	node_data[nid] = nd;
+	NODE_DATA(nid) = nd;
 	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id = nid;
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn = start_pfn;
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 11/16] arm64/numa: support HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES

[Zhen Lei]

Some numa nodes may have no memory. For example:
1. cpu0 on node0
2. cpu1 on node1
3. device0 access the momory from node0 and node1 take the same time.

So, we can not simply classify device0 to node0 or node1, but we can
define a node2 which distances to node0 and node1 are the same.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/Kconfig   |  4 ++++
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 11 ++++++-----
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 2815af6..3a2b6ed 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -611,6 +611,10 @@ config NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK
 	def_bool y
 	depends on NUMA

+config HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
+	def_bool y
+	depends on NUMA
+
 source kernel/Kconfig.preempt
 source kernel/Kconfig.hz

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 087064d..891bdaa 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -149,10 +149,11 @@ static int __init pcpu_cpu_distance(unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
 static void * __init pcpu_fc_alloc(unsigned int cpu, size_t size,
 				       size_t align)
 {
-	int nid = early_cpu_to_node(cpu);
+	phys_addr_t alloc;

-	return  memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(size, align,
-			__pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS), MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid);
+	alloc = memblock_alloc_near_nid(size, align, early_cpu_to_node(cpu));
+
+	return phys_to_virt(alloc);
 }

 static void __init pcpu_fc_free(void *ptr, size_t size)
@@ -222,7 +223,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	pr_info("Initmem setup node %d [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx]\n",
 		nid, start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

-	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_try_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
+	nd_pa = memblock_alloc_near_nid(nd_size, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, nid);
 	nd = __va(nd_pa);

 	/* report and initialize */
@@ -232,7 +233,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 	if (tnid != nid)
 		pr_info("NODE_DATA(%d) on node %d\n", nid, tnid);

-	node_data[nid] = nd;
+	NODE_DATA(nid) = nd;
 	memset(NODE_DATA(nid), 0, sizeof(pg_data_t));
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_id = nid;
 	NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn = start_pfn;
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 12/16] arm64/numa: remove some useless code

[Zhen Lei]

When the deleted code is executed, only the bit of cpu0 was set on
cpu_possible_mask. So that, only set_cpu_numa_node(0, NUMA_NO_NODE); will
be executed. And map_cpu_to_node(0, 0) will soon be called. So these code
can be safely removed.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 891bdaa..72f4539 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -95,7 +95,6 @@ void numa_clear_node(unsigned int cpu)
  */
 static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 {
-	unsigned int cpu;
 	int node;

 	/* setup nr_node_ids if not done yet */
@@ -108,9 +107,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 		cpumask_clear(node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
 	}

-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
-		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);
-
 	/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
 	pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 12/16] arm64/numa: remove some useless code

[Zhen Lei]

When the deleted code is executed, only the bit of cpu0 was set on
cpu_possible_mask. So that, only set_cpu_numa_node(0, NUMA_NO_NODE); will
be executed. And map_cpu_to_node(0, 0) will soon be called. So these code
can be safely removed.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 891bdaa..72f4539 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -95,7 +95,6 @@ void numa_clear_node(unsigned int cpu)
  */
 static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 {
-	unsigned int cpu;
 	int node;

 	/* setup nr_node_ids if not done yet */
@@ -108,9 +107,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 		cpumask_clear(node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
 	}

-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
-		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);
-
 	/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
 	pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 12/16] arm64/numa: remove some useless code

[Zhen Lei]

When the deleted code is executed, only the bit of cpu0 was set on
cpu_possible_mask. So that, only set_cpu_numa_node(0, NUMA_NO_NODE); will
be executed. And map_cpu_to_node(0, 0) will soon be called. So these code
can be safely removed.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 891bdaa..72f4539 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -95,7 +95,6 @@ void numa_clear_node(unsigned int cpu)
  */
 static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 {
-	unsigned int cpu;
 	int node;

 	/* setup nr_node_ids if not done yet */
@@ -108,9 +107,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
 		cpumask_clear(node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
 	}

-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
-		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, NUMA_NO_NODE);
-
 	/* cpumask_of_node() will now work */
 	pr_debug("Node to cpumask map for %d nodes\n", nr_node_ids);
 }
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 13/16] arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0

[Zhen Lei]

1. Remove the old binding code.
2. Read the nid of cpu0 from dts.
3. Fallback the nid of cpu0 to 0 when numa=off is set in bootargs.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c |  1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c    | 16 ++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
index d93d433..4879085 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
@@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static void __init of_parse_and_init_cpus(void)
 			}

 			bootcpu_valid = true;
+			early_map_cpu_to_node(0, of_node_to_nid(dn));

 			/*
 			 * cpu_logical_map has already been
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 72f4539..ef7e336 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -116,16 +116,24 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

 	cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid;
+
+	/*
+	 * We should set the numa node of cpu0 as soon as possible, because it
+	 * has already been set up online before. cpu_to_node(0) will soon be
+	 * called.
+	 */
+	if (!cpu)
+		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, nid);
 }

 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
@@ -394,10 +402,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))

 	setup_node_to_cpumask_map();

-	/* init boot processor */
-	cpu_to_node_map[0] = 0;
-	map_cpu_to_node(0, 0);
-
 	return 0;
 }

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 13/16] arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0

[Zhen Lei]

1. Remove the old binding code.
2. Read the nid of cpu0 from dts.
3. Fallback the nid of cpu0 to 0 when numa=off is set in bootargs.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c |  1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c    | 16 ++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
index d93d433..4879085 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
@@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static void __init of_parse_and_init_cpus(void)
 			}

 			bootcpu_valid = true;
+			early_map_cpu_to_node(0, of_node_to_nid(dn));

 			/*
 			 * cpu_logical_map has already been
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 72f4539..ef7e336 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -116,16 +116,24 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

 	cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid;
+
+	/*
+	 * We should set the numa node of cpu0 as soon as possible, because it
+	 * has already been set up online before. cpu_to_node(0) will soon be
+	 * called.
+	 */
+	if (!cpu)
+		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, nid);
 }

 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
@@ -394,10 +402,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))

 	setup_node_to_cpumask_map();

-	/* init boot processor */
-	cpu_to_node_map[0] = 0;
-	map_cpu_to_node(0, 0);
-
 	return 0;
 }

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 13/16] arm64/numa: remove the limitation that cpu0 must bind to node0

[Zhen Lei]

1. Remove the old binding code.
2. Read the nid of cpu0 from dts.
3. Fallback the nid of cpu0 to 0 when numa=off is set in bootargs.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c |  1 +
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c    | 16 ++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
index d93d433..4879085 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
@@ -619,6 +619,7 @@ static void __init of_parse_and_init_cpus(void)
 			}

 			bootcpu_valid = true;
+			early_map_cpu_to_node(0, of_node_to_nid(dn));

 			/*
 			 * cpu_logical_map has already been
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 72f4539..ef7e336 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -116,16 +116,24 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void)
  */
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, numa_off ? 0 : cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
+	map_cpu_to_node(cpu, cpu_to_node_map[cpu]);
 }

 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid)
 {
 	/* fallback to node 0 */
-	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
+	if (nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || numa_off)
 		nid = 0;

 	cpu_to_node_map[cpu] = nid;
+
+	/*
+	 * We should set the numa node of cpu0 as soon as possible, because it
+	 * has already been set up online before. cpu_to_node(0) will soon be
+	 * called.
+	 */
+	if (!cpu)
+		set_cpu_numa_node(cpu, nid);
 }

 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA
@@ -394,10 +402,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))

 	setup_node_to_cpumask_map();

-	/* init boot processor */
-	cpu_to_node_map[0] = 0;
-	map_cpu_to_node(0, 0);
-
 	return 0;
 }

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 14/16] of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs

[Zhen Lei]

At present, the distances must equal in both direction for each node
pairs. For example: the distance of node B->A must the same to A->B.
But we really don't have to do this.

End up fill default distances as below:
1. If both direction specified, keep no change.
2. If only one direction specified, assign it to the other direction.
3. If none of the two direction specified, both are assigned to
   REMOTE_DISTANCE.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index f63d4b0d..1840045 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -127,15 +127,25 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
 		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);
-
-		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
-		if (nodeb > nodea)
-			numa_set_distance(nodeb, nodea, distance);
 	}

 	return 0;
 }

+static void __init fill_default_distances(void)
+{
+	int i, j;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids; i++)
+		for (j = 0; j < nr_node_ids; j++)
+			if (i == j)
+				numa_set_distance(i, j, LOCAL_DISTANCE);
+			else if (!node_distance(i, j))
+				numa_set_distance(i, j,
+				    node_distance(j, i) ? : REMOTE_DISTANCE);
+
+}
+
 static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map(void)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -145,8 +155,10 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map(void)
 				     "numa-distance-map-v1");
 	if (np)
 		ret = of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(np);
-
 	of_node_put(np);
+
+	fill_default_distances();
+
 	return ret;
 }

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 14/16] of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs

[Zhen Lei]

At present, the distances must equal in both direction for each node
pairs. For example: the distance of node B->A must the same to A->B.
But we really don't have to do this.

End up fill default distances as below:
1. If both direction specified, keep no change.
2. If only one direction specified, assign it to the other direction.
3. If none of the two direction specified, both are assigned to
   REMOTE_DISTANCE.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index f63d4b0d..1840045 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -127,15 +127,25 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
 		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);
-
-		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
-		if (nodeb > nodea)
-			numa_set_distance(nodeb, nodea, distance);
 	}

 	return 0;
 }

+static void __init fill_default_distances(void)
+{
+	int i, j;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids; i++)
+		for (j = 0; j < nr_node_ids; j++)
+			if (i == j)
+				numa_set_distance(i, j, LOCAL_DISTANCE);
+			else if (!node_distance(i, j))
+				numa_set_distance(i, j,
+				    node_distance(j, i) ? : REMOTE_DISTANCE);
+
+}
+
 static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map(void)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -145,8 +155,10 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map(void)
 				     "numa-distance-map-v1");
 	if (np)
 		ret = of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(np);
-
 	of_node_put(np);
+
+	fill_default_distances();
+
 	return ret;
 }

--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 14/16] of/numa: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs

[Zhen Lei]

At present, the distances must equal in both direction for each node
pairs. For example: the distance of node B->A must the same to A->B.
But we really don't have to do this.

End up fill default distances as below:
1. If both direction specified, keep no change.
2. If only one direction specified, assign it to the other direction.
3. If none of the two direction specified, both are assigned to
   REMOTE_DISTANCE.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/of/of_numa.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
index f63d4b0d..1840045 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
@@ -127,15 +127,25 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
 		numa_set_distance(nodea, nodeb, distance);
 		pr_debug("distance[node%d -> node%d] = %d\n",
 			 nodea, nodeb, distance);
-
-		/* Set default distance of node B->A same as A->B */
-		if (nodeb > nodea)
-			numa_set_distance(nodeb, nodea, distance);
 	}

 	return 0;
 }

+static void __init fill_default_distances(void)
+{
+	int i, j;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < nr_node_ids; i++)
+		for (j = 0; j < nr_node_ids; j++)
+			if (i == j)
+				numa_set_distance(i, j, LOCAL_DISTANCE);
+			else if (!node_distance(i, j))
+				numa_set_distance(i, j,
+				    node_distance(j, i) ? : REMOTE_DISTANCE);
+
+}
+
 static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map(void)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -145,8 +155,10 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map(void)
 				     "numa-distance-map-v1");
 	if (np)
 		ret = of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(np);
-
 	of_node_put(np);
+
+	fill_default_distances();
+
 	return ret;
 }

--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 15/16] Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs

[Zhen Lei]

At present, the distances must equal in both direction for each node
pairs. For example: the distance of node B->A must the same to A->B.
But we really don't have to do this.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
index 21b3505..f7234cd 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
@@ -48,15 +48,19 @@ distance (memory latency) between all numa nodes.

   Note:
 	1. Each entry represents distance from first node to second node.
-	The distances are equal in either direction.
 	2. The distance from a node to self (local distance) is represented
 	with value 10 and all internode distance should be represented with
 	a value greater than 10.
-	3. distance-matrix should have entries in lexicographical ascending
+	3. For non-local node pairs:
+	  1) If both direction specified, keep no change.
+	  2) If only one direction specified, assign it to the other direction.
+	  3) If none of the two direction specified, both are assigned to
+	     REMOTE_DISTANCE.
+	4. distance-matrix should have entries in lexicographical ascending
 	order of nodes.
-	4. There must be only one device node distance-map which must
+	5. There must be only one device node distance-map which must
 	reside in the root node.
-	5. If the distance-map node is not present, a default
+	6. If the distance-map node is not present, a default
 	distance-matrix is used.

 Example:
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 15/16] Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs

[Zhen Lei]

At present, the distances must equal in both direction for each node
pairs. For example: the distance of node B->A must the same to A->B.
But we really don't have to do this.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
index 21b3505..f7234cd 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
@@ -48,15 +48,19 @@ distance (memory latency) between all numa nodes.

   Note:
 	1. Each entry represents distance from first node to second node.
-	The distances are equal in either direction.
 	2. The distance from a node to self (local distance) is represented
 	with value 10 and all internode distance should be represented with
 	a value greater than 10.
-	3. distance-matrix should have entries in lexicographical ascending
+	3. For non-local node pairs:
+	  1) If both direction specified, keep no change.
+	  2) If only one direction specified, assign it to the other direction.
+	  3) If none of the two direction specified, both are assigned to
+	     REMOTE_DISTANCE.
+	4. distance-matrix should have entries in lexicographical ascending
 	order of nodes.
-	4. There must be only one device node distance-map which must
+	5. There must be only one device node distance-map which must
 	reside in the root node.
-	5. If the distance-map node is not present, a default
+	6. If the distance-map node is not present, a default
 	distance-matrix is used.

 Example:
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 15/16] Documentation: remove the constraint on the distances of node pairs

[Zhen Lei]

At present, the distances must equal in both direction for each node
pairs. For example: the distance of node B->A must the same to A->B.
But we really don't have to do this.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
index 21b3505..f7234cd 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt
@@ -48,15 +48,19 @@ distance (memory latency) between all numa nodes.

   Note:
 	1. Each entry represents distance from first node to second node.
-	The distances are equal in either direction.
 	2. The distance from a node to self (local distance) is represented
 	with value 10 and all internode distance should be represented with
 	a value greater than 10.
-	3. distance-matrix should have entries in lexicographical ascending
+	3. For non-local node pairs:
+	  1) If both direction specified, keep no change.
+	  2) If only one direction specified, assign it to the other direction.
+	  3) If none of the two direction specified, both are assigned to
+	     REMOTE_DISTANCE.
+	4. distance-matrix should have entries in lexicographical ascending
 	order of nodes.
-	4. There must be only one device node distance-map which must
+	5. There must be only one device node distance-map which must
 	reside in the root node.
-	5. If the distance-map node is not present, a default
+	6. If the distance-map node is not present, a default
 	distance-matrix is used.

 Example:
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 16/16] arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

[Zhen Lei]

1. MAX_NUMNODES is base on CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT, the default value of the
   latter is very small now.
2. Suppose the default value of MAX_NUMNODES is enlarged to 64, so the
   size of numa_distance is 4K, it's still acceptable if run the Image
   on other processors.
3. It will make function __node_distance quicker than before.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h |  1 -
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c          | 74 +++----------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
index 600887e..9b6cc38 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
 void __init arm64_numa_init(void);
 int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end);
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance);
-void __init numa_free_distance(void);
 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid);
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu);

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index ef7e336..15ff117 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -33,8 +33,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data);
 nodemask_t numa_nodes_parsed __initdata;
 static int cpu_to_node_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = NUMA_NO_NODE };

-static int numa_distance_cnt;
-static u8 *numa_distance;
+static u8 numa_distance[MAX_NUMNODES][MAX_NUMNODES];
 static bool numa_off;

 static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
@@ -245,59 +244,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 }

 /**
- * numa_free_distance
- *
- * The current table is freed.
- */
-void __init numa_free_distance(void)
-{
-	size_t size;
-
-	if (!numa_distance)
-		return;
-
-	size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt *
-		sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
-
-	memblock_free(__pa(numa_distance), size);
-	numa_distance_cnt = 0;
-	numa_distance = NULL;
-}
-
-/**
- *
- * Create a new NUMA distance table.
- *
- */
-static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
-{
-	size_t size;
-	u64 phys;
-	int i, j;
-
-	size = nr_node_ids * nr_node_ids * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
-	phys = memblock_find_in_range(0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn),
-				      size, PAGE_SIZE);
-	if (WARN_ON(!phys))
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	memblock_reserve(phys, size);
-
-	numa_distance = __va(phys);
-	numa_distance_cnt = nr_node_ids;
-
-	/* fill with the default distances */
-	for (i = 0; i < numa_distance_cnt; i++)
-		for (j = 0; j < numa_distance_cnt; j++)
-			numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
-				LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
-
-	pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-/**
  * numa_set_distance - Set inter node NUMA distance from node to node.
  * @from: the 'from' node to set distance
  * @to: the 'to'  node to set distance
@@ -312,12 +258,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
  */
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
-	if (!numa_distance) {
-		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
-		return;
-	}
-
-	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
+	if (from >= MAX_NUMNODES || to >= MAX_NUMNODES ||
 			from < 0 || to < 0) {
 		pr_warn_once("Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			    from, to, distance);
@@ -331,7 +272,7 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 		return;
 	}

-	numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to] = distance;
+	numa_distance[from][to] = distance;
 }

 /**
@@ -339,9 +280,9 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
  */
 int __node_distance(int from, int to)
 {
-	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt)
+	if (from >= MAX_NUMNODES || to >= MAX_NUMNODES)
 		return from == to ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
-	return numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to];
+	return numa_distance[from][to];
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__node_distance);

@@ -381,11 +322,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
 	nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed);
 	nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
 	nodes_clear(node_online_map);
-	numa_free_distance();
-
-	ret = numa_alloc_distance();
-	if (ret < 0)
-		return ret;

 	ret = init_func();
 	if (ret < 0)
--
2.5.0

[PATCH v8 16/16] arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

[Zhen Lei]

1. MAX_NUMNODES is base on CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT, the default value of the
   latter is very small now.
2. Suppose the default value of MAX_NUMNODES is enlarged to 64, so the
   size of numa_distance is 4K, it's still acceptable if run the Image
   on other processors.
3. It will make function __node_distance quicker than before.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h |  1 -
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c          | 74 +++----------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
index 600887e..9b6cc38 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
 void __init arm64_numa_init(void);
 int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end);
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance);
-void __init numa_free_distance(void);
 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid);
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu);

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index ef7e336..15ff117 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -33,8 +33,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data);
 nodemask_t numa_nodes_parsed __initdata;
 static int cpu_to_node_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = NUMA_NO_NODE };

-static int numa_distance_cnt;
-static u8 *numa_distance;
+static u8 numa_distance[MAX_NUMNODES][MAX_NUMNODES];
 static bool numa_off;

 static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
@@ -245,59 +244,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 }

 /**
- * numa_free_distance
- *
- * The current table is freed.
- */
-void __init numa_free_distance(void)
-{
-	size_t size;
-
-	if (!numa_distance)
-		return;
-
-	size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt *
-		sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
-
-	memblock_free(__pa(numa_distance), size);
-	numa_distance_cnt = 0;
-	numa_distance = NULL;
-}
-
-/**
- *
- * Create a new NUMA distance table.
- *
- */
-static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
-{
-	size_t size;
-	u64 phys;
-	int i, j;
-
-	size = nr_node_ids * nr_node_ids * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
-	phys = memblock_find_in_range(0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn),
-				      size, PAGE_SIZE);
-	if (WARN_ON(!phys))
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	memblock_reserve(phys, size);
-
-	numa_distance = __va(phys);
-	numa_distance_cnt = nr_node_ids;
-
-	/* fill with the default distances */
-	for (i = 0; i < numa_distance_cnt; i++)
-		for (j = 0; j < numa_distance_cnt; j++)
-			numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
-				LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
-
-	pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-/**
  * numa_set_distance - Set inter node NUMA distance from node to node.
  * @from: the 'from' node to set distance
  * @to: the 'to'  node to set distance
@@ -312,12 +258,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
  */
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
-	if (!numa_distance) {
-		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
-		return;
-	}
-
-	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
+	if (from >= MAX_NUMNODES || to >= MAX_NUMNODES ||
 			from < 0 || to < 0) {
 		pr_warn_once("Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			    from, to, distance);
@@ -331,7 +272,7 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 		return;
 	}

-	numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to] = distance;
+	numa_distance[from][to] = distance;
 }

 /**
@@ -339,9 +280,9 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
  */
 int __node_distance(int from, int to)
 {
-	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt)
+	if (from >= MAX_NUMNODES || to >= MAX_NUMNODES)
 		return from == to ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
-	return numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to];
+	return numa_distance[from][to];
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__node_distance);

@@ -381,11 +322,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
 	nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed);
 	nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
 	nodes_clear(node_online_map);
-	numa_free_distance();
-
-	ret = numa_alloc_distance();
-	if (ret < 0)
-		return ret;

 	ret = init_func();
 	if (ret < 0)
--
2.5.0


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 16/16] arm64/numa: define numa_distance as array to simplify code

[Zhen Lei]

1. MAX_NUMNODES is base on CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT, the default value of the
   latter is very small now.
2. Suppose the default value of MAX_NUMNODES is enlarged to 64, so the
   size of numa_distance is 4K, it's still acceptable if run the Image
   on other processors.
3. It will make function __node_distance quicker than before.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h |  1 -
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c          | 74 +++----------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
index 600887e..9b6cc38 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/numa.h
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
 void __init arm64_numa_init(void);
 int __init numa_add_memblk(int nodeid, u64 start, u64 end);
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance);
-void __init numa_free_distance(void);
 void __init early_map_cpu_to_node(unsigned int cpu, int nid);
 void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu);

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index ef7e336..15ff117 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -33,8 +33,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(node_data);
 nodemask_t numa_nodes_parsed __initdata;
 static int cpu_to_node_map[NR_CPUS] = { [0 ... NR_CPUS-1] = NUMA_NO_NODE };

-static int numa_distance_cnt;
-static u8 *numa_distance;
+static u8 numa_distance[MAX_NUMNODES][MAX_NUMNODES];
 static bool numa_off;

 static __init int numa_parse_early_param(char *opt)
@@ -245,59 +244,6 @@ static void __init setup_node_data(int nid, u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 }

 /**
- * numa_free_distance
- *
- * The current table is freed.
- */
-void __init numa_free_distance(void)
-{
-	size_t size;
-
-	if (!numa_distance)
-		return;
-
-	size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt *
-		sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
-
-	memblock_free(__pa(numa_distance), size);
-	numa_distance_cnt = 0;
-	numa_distance = NULL;
-}
-
-/**
- *
- * Create a new NUMA distance table.
- *
- */
-static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
-{
-	size_t size;
-	u64 phys;
-	int i, j;
-
-	size = nr_node_ids * nr_node_ids * sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
-	phys = memblock_find_in_range(0, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn),
-				      size, PAGE_SIZE);
-	if (WARN_ON(!phys))
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	memblock_reserve(phys, size);
-
-	numa_distance = __va(phys);
-	numa_distance_cnt = nr_node_ids;
-
-	/* fill with the default distances */
-	for (i = 0; i < numa_distance_cnt; i++)
-		for (j = 0; j < numa_distance_cnt; j++)
-			numa_distance[i * numa_distance_cnt + j] = i == j ?
-				LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
-
-	pr_debug("Initialized distance table, cnt=%d\n", numa_distance_cnt);
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-/**
  * numa_set_distance - Set inter node NUMA distance from node to node.
  * @from: the 'from' node to set distance
  * @to: the 'to'  node to set distance
@@ -312,12 +258,7 @@ static int __init numa_alloc_distance(void)
  */
 void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 {
-	if (!numa_distance) {
-		pr_warn_once("Warning: distance table not allocated yet\n");
-		return;
-	}
-
-	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt ||
+	if (from >= MAX_NUMNODES || to >= MAX_NUMNODES ||
 			from < 0 || to < 0) {
 		pr_warn_once("Warning: node ids are out of bound, from=%d to=%d distance=%d\n",
 			    from, to, distance);
@@ -331,7 +272,7 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
 		return;
 	}

-	numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to] = distance;
+	numa_distance[from][to] = distance;
 }

 /**
@@ -339,9 +280,9 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
  */
 int __node_distance(int from, int to)
 {
-	if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt)
+	if (from >= MAX_NUMNODES || to >= MAX_NUMNODES)
 		return from == to ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
-	return numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to];
+	return numa_distance[from][to];
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__node_distance);

@@ -381,11 +322,6 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
 	nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed);
 	nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
 	nodes_clear(node_online_map);
-	numa_free_distance();
-
-	ret = numa_alloc_distance();
-	if (ret < 0)
-		return ret;

 	ret = init_func();
 	if (ret < 0)
--
2.5.0

Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> v7 -> v8:
> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
> 
> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
> 
> Hi, Will:
> Something should still be clarified:
> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>          
> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
> 
> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
> 
> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
especially easy. As far as I can tell:

  Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks

  Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks

  Patch 11 depends on patch 10

  Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
  value).

So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
questionable changes at the end.

Please throw me a clue,

Will

Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> v7 -> v8:
> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
> 
> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
> 
> Hi, Will:
> Something should still be clarified:
> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>          
> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
> 
> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
> 
> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
especially easy. As far as I can tell:

  Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks

  Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks

  Patch 11 depends on patch 10

  Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
  value).

So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
questionable changes at the end.

Please throw me a clue,

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> v7 -> v8:
> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
> 
> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
> 
> Hi, Will:
> Something should still be clarified:
> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>          
> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
> 
> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
> 
> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
especially easy. As far as I can tell:

  Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks

  Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks

  Patch 11 depends on patch 10

  Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
  value).

So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
questionable changes at the end.

Please throw me a clue,

Will

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> v7 -> v8:
> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
> 
> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
> 
> Hi, Will:
> Something should still be clarified:
> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>          
> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
> 
> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
> 
> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 

Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
especially easy. As far as I can tell:

  Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks

  Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks

  Patch 11 depends on patch 10

  Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
  value).

So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
questionable changes at the end.

Please throw me a clue,

Will

Re: [PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
> If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
> than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
> and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
>                          */
>                         continue;
>
> +               if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> +                       pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);

Really using pr_fmt should come first so you're not changing this
line. But not worth respinning for that:

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Rob

Re: [PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
> than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
> and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
>                          */
>                         continue;
>
> +               if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> +                       pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);

Really using pr_fmt should come first so you're not changing this
line. But not worth respinning for that:

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
> If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
> than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
> and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
>                          */
>                         continue;
>
> +               if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> +                       pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);

Really using pr_fmt should come first so you're not changing this
line. But not worth respinning for that:

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Rob

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 03/16] of/numa: add nid check for memory block

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
> If the numa-id which was configured in memory@ devicetree node is greater
> than MAX_NUMNODES, we should report a warning. We have done this for cpus
> and distance-map dt nodes, this patch help them to be consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/of_numa.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> index 7b3fbdc..c1bd62c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
>                          */
>                         continue;
>
> +               if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> +                       pr_warn("NUMA: Node id %u exceeds maximum value\n", nid);

Really using pr_fmt should come first so you're not changing this
line. But not worth respinning for that:

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Rob

Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/8 19:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> v7 -> v8:
>> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
>>
>> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
>> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
>> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
>>
>> Hi, Will:
>> Something should still be clarified:
>> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>>          
>> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
>>
>> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
>> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
>>
>> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 
> 
> Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
> especially easy. As far as I can tell:
> 
>   Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks
Rob just acked.

> 
>   Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks
I'll immediately send a email to remind them.

> 
>   Patch 11 depends on patch 10
> 
>   Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
>   value).
OK, that's no problem. So I put them in the end beforehand.

> 
> So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
Now you can also add patch 3.

> that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
The most valueable patches are: patch 2, 9, 11. The other is just because of a programmer wants the code to be nice.

> cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
> questionable changes at the end.
> 
> Please throw me a clue,
> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/8 19:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> v7 -> v8:
>> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
>>
>> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
>> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
>> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
>>
>> Hi, Will:
>> Something should still be clarified:
>> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>>          
>> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
>>
>> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
>> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
>>
>> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 
> 
> Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
> especially easy. As far as I can tell:
> 
>   Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks
Rob just acked.

> 
>   Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks
I'll immediately send a email to remind them.

> 
>   Patch 11 depends on patch 10
> 
>   Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
>   value).
OK, that's no problem. So I put them in the end beforehand.

> 
> So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
Now you can also add patch 3.

> that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
The most valueable patches are: patch 2, 9, 11. The other is just because of a programmer wants the code to be nice.

> cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
> questionable changes at the end.
> 
> Please throw me a clue,
> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/8 19:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> v7 -> v8:
>> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
>>
>> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
>> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
>> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
>>
>> Hi, Will:
>> Something should still be clarified:
>> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>>          
>> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
>>
>> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
>> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
>>
>> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 
> 
> Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
> especially easy. As far as I can tell:
> 
>   Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks
Rob just acked.

> 
>   Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks
I'll immediately send a email to remind them.

> 
>   Patch 11 depends on patch 10
> 
>   Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
>   value).
OK, that's no problem. So I put them in the end beforehand.

> 
> So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
Now you can also add patch 3.

> that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
The most valueable patches are: patch 2, 9, 11. The other is just because of a programmer wants the code to be nice.

> cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
> questionable changes at the end.
> 
> Please throw me a clue,
> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/8 19:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> v7 -> v8:
>> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks.
>>
>> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
>> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring.
>> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm.
>>
>> Hi, Will:
>> Something should still be clarified:
>> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence
>>          "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved
>>          into acpi_numa_init, I think.
>>          
>> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64.
>>          1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different.
>>          2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different.
>>
>> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is
>> 	  dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped.
>>
>> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks
>>           to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. 
> 
> Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not
> especially easy. As far as I can tell:
> 
>   Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks
Rob just acked.

> 
>   Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks
I'll immediately send a email to remind them.

> 
>   Patch 11 depends on patch 10
> 
>   Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their
>   value).
OK, that's no problem. So I put them in the end beforehand.

> 
> So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether
Now you can also add patch 3.

> that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk
The most valueable patches are: patch 2, 9, 11. The other is just because of a programmer wants the code to be nice.

> cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some
> questionable changes at the end.
> 
> Please throw me a clue,
> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

Hi, linux-mm folks:
    Can somebody help me to review this patch?
    I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/memblock.c and scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/, but
the results showed me that there is no maintainer.
    To understand this patch should also read patch 11.

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

Hi, linux-mm folks:
    Can somebody help me to review this patch?
    I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/memblock.c and scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/, but
the results showed me that there is no maintainer.
    To understand this patch should also read patch 11.

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

Hi, linux-mm folks:
    Can somebody help me to review this patch?
    I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/memblock.c and scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/, but
the results showed me that there is no maintainer.
    To understand this patch should also read patch 11.

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

Hi, linux-mm folks:
    Can somebody help me to review this patch?
    I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/memblock.c and scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/, but
the results showed me that there is no maintainer.
    To understand this patch should also read patch 11.

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

Hi Will,
  It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.

> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

Hi Will,
  It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.

> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

Hi Will,
  It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.

> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> > actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> > memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> > to improve performance.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
> >  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> Hi Will,
>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.

I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
surprising that it didn't all get picked up.

Will

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> > actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> > memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> > to improve performance.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
> >  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> Hi Will,
>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.

I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
surprising that it didn't all get picked up.

Will

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> > If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> > actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> > memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> > to improve performance.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
> >  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> Hi Will,
>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.

I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
surprising that it didn't all get picked up.

Will

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/10/11 18:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
>>> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
>>> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
>>> to improve performance.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>>>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.
> 
> I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
> do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
> mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
> surprising that it didn't all get picked up.
OK, thanks.

> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/10/11 18:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
>>> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
>>> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
>>> to improve performance.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>>>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.
> 
> I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
> do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
> mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
> surprising that it didn't all get picked up.
OK, thanks.

> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/10/11 18:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
>>> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
>>> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
>>> to improve performance.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>>>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.
> 
> I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
> do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
> mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
> surprising that it didn't all get picked up.
OK, thanks.

> 
> Will
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near_nid

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/10/11 18:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:44:20AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
>>> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
>>> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
>>> to improve performance.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>>>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>
>> Hi Will,
>>   It seems no one take care about this, how about I move below function into arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> again? So that, merge it and patch 11 into one.
> 
> I'd rather you reposted it after the merge window so we can see what to
> do with it then. The previous posting was really hard to figure out and
> mixed lots of different concepts into one series, so it's not completely
> surprising that it didn't all get picked up.
OK, thanks.

> 
> Will
> 
> .
>