On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Justin He <justin...@arm.com> wrote:
[..]
> > Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info
> > (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic
> > memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does:
> >
> > int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> > {
> > unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr);
> > int nid;
> >
> > for_each_online_node(nid) {
> > get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
> > if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn)
> > return nid;
> > }
> > return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > }
>
> Thanks for your suggestion,
> Could I wrap the codes and let memory_add_physaddr_to_nid simply invoke
> phys_to_target_node()?
I think it needs to be the reverse. phys_to_target_node() should call
memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() by default, but fall back to searching
reserved memory address ranges in memblock. See phys_to_target_node()
in arch/x86/mm/numa.c. That one uses numa_meminfo instead of memblock,
but the principle is the same i.e. that a target node may not be
represented in memblock.memory, but memblock.reserved. I'm working on
a patch to provide a function similar to get_pfn_range_for_nid() that
operates on reserved memory.
