[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812051120550.240991@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:24:53 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
s.priebe@...fihost.ag, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, lkp@...org, kirill@...temov.name,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
zi.yan@...rutgers.edu, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2 for-4.20] mm, thp: restore node-local hugepage
allocations
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > At minimum do not remove the cleanup part which consolidates the gfp
> > > hadnling to a single place. There is no real reason to have the
> > > __GFP_THISNODE ugliness outside of alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask.
> > >
> >
> > The __GFP_THISNODE usage is still confined to
> > alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask() for the thp fault path, we no longer set
> > it in alloc_pages_vma() as done before the cleanup.
>
> Why should be new_page any different?
>
To match alloc_new_node_page() which does it correctly and does not change
the behavior of mbind() that the cleanup did, which used
alloc_hugepage_vma() to get the __GFP_THISNODE behavior. If there is a
reason mbind() is somehow different wrt allocating hugepages locally, I
think that should be a separate patch, but the goal of this patch is to
revert all the behavioral change that caused hugepages to be allocated
remotely.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists