[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm, thp: consolidate THP gfp handling into alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask
On 10/25/18 1:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:27:54 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <> wrote:
>>> : Moreover the oriinal code allowed to trigger
>>> : WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE));
>>> : in policy_node if the requested node (e.g. cpu local one) was outside of
>>> : the mbind nodemask. This is not possible now. We haven't heard about any
>>> : such warning yet so it is unlikely that it happens but still a signal of
>>> : a wrong code layering.
>> Ah, as I said in the other mail, I think it's inaccurate, the warning
>> was not possible to hit.
>> There's also a slight difference wrt MPOL_BIND. The previous code would
>> avoid using __GFP_THISNODE if the local node was outside of
>> policy_nodemask(). After your patch __GFP_THISNODE is avoided for all
>> MPOL_BIND policies. So there's a difference that if local node is
>> actually allowed by the bind policy's nodemask, previously
>> __GFP_THISNODE would be added, but now it won't be. I don't think it
>> matters that much though, but maybe the changelog could say that
>> (instead of the inaccurate note about warning). Note the other policy
>> where nodemask is relevant is MPOL_INTERLEAVE, and that's unchanged by
>> this patch.
> So the above could go into the changelog, yes?


>> When that's addressed, you can add
> What is it that you'd like to see addressed? Purely changelog updates?


>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <>
> Thanks.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-25 07:00    [W:0.080 / U:1.268 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site