[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRIFDYUokzCtK0oQ@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:09:17 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>,
Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] hugetlbfs: drop shared NUMA mempolicy pretence
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:21:10AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> hugetlbfs_fallocate() goes through the motions of pasting a shared NUMA
> mempolicy onto its pseudo-vma, but how could there ever be a shared NUMA
> mempolicy for this file? hugetlb_vm_ops has never offered a set_policy
> method, and hugetlbfs_parse_param() has never supported any mpol options
> for a mount-wide default policy.
Hah. I was wondering, but never cared enough to investigate. Thanks
for doing this.
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists