linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hugetlb: remove __GFP_THISNODE flag when dissolving the old hugetlb

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:23:16 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev, osalvador@...e.de,
	david@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hugetlb: remove __GFP_THISNODE flag when
 dissolving the old hugetlb

On Mon 05-02-24 21:06:17, Baolin Wang wrote:
[...]
> > It is quite possible that traditional users (like large DBs) do not use
> > CMA heavily so such a problem was not observed so far. That doesn't mean
> > those problems do not really matter.
> 
> CMA is just one case, as I mentioned before, other situations can also break
> the per-node hugetlb pool now.

Is there any other case than memory hotplug which is arguably different
as it is a disruptive operation already.

> Let's focus on the main point, why we should still keep inconsistency
> behavior to handle free and in-use hugetlb for alloc_contig_range()? That's
> really confused.

yes, this should behave consistently. And the least surprising way to
handle that from the user configuration POV is to not move outside of
the original NUMA node.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs