lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] mm, hugetlb: unify core page allocation accounting and initialization
On Tue 28-11-17 13:34:53, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 06:12 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > +/*
> > + * Allocates a fresh page to the hugetlb allocator pool in the node interleaved
> > + * manner.
> > + */
> > static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(struct hstate *h, nodemask_t *nodes_allowed)
> > {
> > struct page *page;
> > int nr_nodes, node;
> > - int ret = 0;
> > + gfp_t gfp_mask = htlb_alloc_mask(h) | __GFP_THISNODE;
> >
> > for_each_node_mask_to_alloc(h, nr_nodes, node, nodes_allowed) {
> > - page = alloc_fresh_huge_page_node(h, node);
> > - if (page) {
> > - ret = 1;
> > + page = __hugetlb_alloc_buddy_huge_page(h, gfp_mask,
> > + node, nodes_allowed);
>
> I don't have the greatest understanding of node/nodemasks, but ...
> Since __hugetlb_alloc_buddy_huge_page calls __alloc_pages_nodemask(), do
> we still need to explicitly iterate over nodes with
> for_each_node_mask_to_alloc() here?

Yes we do, because callers depend on the round robin allocation policy
which is implemented by the ugly for_each_node_mask_to_alloc. I am not
saying I like the way this is done but this is user visible thing.

Or maybe I've missunderstood the whole thing...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-29 07:58    [W:0.061 / U:3.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site