Re: [PATCH v3 11/26] x86/numa: use get_pfn_range_for_nid to verify that node spans memory
From: Dan Williams <hidden>
Date: 2024-08-05 20:04:08
Also in:
linux-acpi, linux-arch, linux-cxl, linux-devicetree, linux-doc, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-s390, linux-sh, linuxppc-dev, lkml, loongarch, nvdimm, sparclinux
Mike Rapoport wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> Instead of looping over numa_meminfo array to detect node's start and end addresses use get_pfn_range_for_init(). This is shorter and make it easier to lift numa_memblks to generic code. Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> Tested-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> # for x86_64 and arm64 --- arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 13 +++---------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index edfc38803779..cfe7e5477cf8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c@@ -521,17 +521,10 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi) /* Finally register nodes. */ for_each_node_mask(nid, node_possible_map) { - u64 start = PFN_PHYS(max_pfn); - u64 end = 0; + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn; - for (i = 0; i < mi->nr_blks; i++) { - if (nid != mi->blk[i].nid) - continue; - start = min(mi->blk[i].start, start); - end = max(mi->blk[i].end, end); - } - - if (start >= end) + get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn); + if (start_pfn >= end_pfn)
Assuming I understand why this works, would it be worth a comment like: "Note, get_pfn_range_for_nid() depends on memblock_set_node() having already happened" ...at least that context was not part of the diff so took me second to figure out how this works.