[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a03cb815-8f80-03db-c1bd-39af960db601@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 18:49:24 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, shakeelb@...gle.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Allocate shrinker_map on appropriate NUMA node
On 31.01.2020 18:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 31-01-20 18:00:51, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> [...]
>> @@ -333,8 +333,9 @@ static int memcg_expand_one_shrinker_map(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> /* Not yet online memcg */
>> if (!old)
>> return 0;
>> -
>> - new = kvmalloc(sizeof(*new) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + /* See comment in alloc_mem_cgroup_per_node_info()*/
>> + tmp = node_state(nid, N_NORMAL_MEMORY) ? nid : NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> + new = kvmalloc_node(sizeof(*new) + size, GFP_KERNEL, tmp);
>> if (!new)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>
> I do not think this is a good pattern to copy. Why cannot you simply use
> kvmalloc_node with the given node? The allocator should fallback to the
> closest node if the given one doesn't have any memory.
Hm, why isn't the same scheme used in alloc_mem_cgroup_per_node_info() then?
Kirill
Powered by blists - more mailing lists