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:2.627 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site