linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: remove the calling of local_memory

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1db7f790-b4df-435b-25b1-d99222ed7c50@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:08:49 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Xianting Tian <tian.xianting@....com>,
        raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: remove the calling of local_memory_node()

On 10/19/20 2:20 AM, Xianting Tian wrote:
> We don't need to check whether the node is memoryless numa node before
> calling allocator interface. SLUB(and SLAB,SLOB) relies on the page
> allocator to pick a node. Page allocator should deal with memoryless
> nodes just fine. It has zonelists constructed for each possible nodes.
> And it will automatically fall back into a node which is closest to the
> requested node. As long as __GFP_THISNODE is not enforced of course.
> 
> The code comments of kmem_cache_alloc_node() of SLAB also showed this:
>  * Fallback to other node is possible if __GFP_THISNODE is not set.
> 
> blk-mq code doesn't set __GFP_THISNODE, so we can remove the calling
> of local_memory_node().

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe