linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] mm/hugetlb: unify migration callbacks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAmzW4N646-xYWosMwwnOgjAB+Z_eoZO4rs58ab+gYbHXmydJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:02:41 +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 v3 3/8] mm/hugetlb: unify migration callbacks

2020년 6월 25일 (목) 오후 8:26, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Tue 23-06-20 15:13:43, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> >
> > There is no difference between two migration callback functions,
> > alloc_huge_page_node() and alloc_huge_page_nodemask(), except
> > __GFP_THISNODE handling. This patch adds an argument, gfp_mask, on
> > alloc_huge_page_nodemask() and replace the callsite for
> > alloc_huge_page_node() with the call to
> > alloc_huge_page_nodemask(..., __GFP_THISNODE).
> >
> > It's safe to remove a node id check in alloc_huge_page_node() since
> > there is no caller passing NUMA_NO_NODE as a node id.
>
> Yes this is indeed safe. alloc_huge_page_node used to be called from
> other internal hugetlb allocation layer and that allowed NUMA_NO_NODE as
> well. Now it is called only from the mempolicy migration callback and
> that always specifies a node and want to stick with that node.
>
> But I have to say I really dislike the gfp semantic because it is
> different from any other allocation function I can think of. It
> specifies what to be added rather than what should be used.
>
> Removing the function is ok but please use the full gfp mask instead
> or if that is impractical for some reason (wich shouldn't be the case
> as htlb_alloc_mask should be trivial to make static inline) make it
> explicit that this is not a gfp_mask but a gfp modifier and explicitly
> state which modifiers are allowed.

Okay. I will try to solve your concern. Concrete solution is not yet prepared
but perhaps I will use full gfp_mask by using htlb_alloc_mask() in caller sites.

Thanks.