linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mm/hugetlb: add support for mempolicy MPOL_PREFERRED

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: <1bf315a3-5953-93ac-7bab-ff1328ee46e1@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:21:00 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mm/hugetlb: add support for mempolicy
 MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY

On 7/22/21 2:42 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-07-21 13:49:15, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 7/12/21 1:09 AM, Feng Tang wrote:
> [...]
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>>> +	if (mpol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
>>> +		gfp_t gfp = (gfp_mask | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
>>
>> I believe __GFP_NOWARN will be added later in alloc_buddy_huge_page, so
>> no need to add here?
> 
> The mask is manipulated here anyway and the __GFP_NOWARN is really
> telling that there is no need to report the failure for _this_
> allocation request. alloc_surplus_huge_page might alter that in whatever
> way in the future. So I would keep NOWARN here for the code clarity
> rather than rely on some implicit assumption down the path.

Makes sense.  Better to leave the __GFP_NOWARN here for clarity.

-- 
Mike Kravetz