lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm, thp: consolidate THP gfp handling into alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:27:54 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> 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 <vbabka@suse.cz>

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-25 01:19    [W:0.080 / U:5.260 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site