[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4N-O9+Y9xmi6WfB5_1voBQJZzPetpksdqcBx51kkY6njw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:11:35 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@....com,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] mm/hugetlb: unify hugetlb migration callback function
2020년 6월 9일 (화) 오후 10:43, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Wed 27-05-20 15:44:56, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > -/* page migration callback function */
> > struct page *alloc_huge_page_nodemask(struct hstate *h,
> > struct alloc_control *ac)
> > {
> > ac->gfp_mask |= htlb_alloc_mask(h);
> > + if (ac->nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > + ac->gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_THISNODE;
>
> Is this really needed? alloc_huge_page_node is currently only called
> from numa migration code and the target node should be always defined.
Thanks! When I read the code, I was not sure that the target node is always
defined so I left this code. However, if it's true, this code isn't
needed at all.
I will consider your suggestion in the next version.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists