[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8d35b8ae-b8d8-4237-bfcf-ed63c0bb4223@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:40:08 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev, david@...hat.com,
linmiaohe@...wei.com, naoya.horiguchi@....com, mhocko@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: hugetlb: make the hugetlb migration strategy
consistent
On 2024/2/27 23:17, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 09:52:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -2567,13 +2567,38 @@ static struct folio *alloc_surplus_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>> }
>>
>> static struct folio *alloc_migrate_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> - int nid, nodemask_t *nmask)
>> + int nid, nodemask_t *nmask, int reason)
>
> I still dislike taking the reason argument this far, and I'd rather have
> this as a boolean specifing whether we allow fallback on other nodes.
> That would mean parsing the reason in alloc_migration_target().
> If we don't add a new helper e.g: gfp_allow_fallback(), we can just do
> it right there an opencode it with a e.g: macro etc.
>
> Although doing it in an inline helper might help hiding these details.
>
> That's my take on this, but let's see what others have to say.
Sure. I also expressed my preference for hiding these details within the
hugetlb core as much as possible.
Muchun, what do you think? Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists