[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ya/vaGdKHm6Zy3ML@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:34:00 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, shy828301@...il.com, guro@...com,
vbabka@...e.cz, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, raquini@...hat.com,
mhocko@...e.com, david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker_info on
offlined nodes
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:40:13PM -0500, Nico Pache wrote:
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -222,13 +222,16 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> int size = map_size + defer_size;
>
> for_each_node(nid) {
> + int tmp = nid;
> pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid];
> old = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
> /* Not yet online memcg */
> if (!old)
> return 0;
>
> - new = kvmalloc_node(sizeof(*new) + size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
> + if(!node_online(nid))
> + tmp = numa_mem_id();
> + new = kvmalloc_node(sizeof(*new) + size, GFP_KERNEL, tmp);
> if (!new)
Why should this be fixed here and not in, say, kvmalloc_node()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists