[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F0F548.6070109@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:52:56 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
Jarno Rajahalme <jrajahalme@...ira.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm: remove GFP_THISNODE
On 27.2.2015 23:31, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>>> Do you see any issues with either patch 1/2 or patch 2/2 besides the
>>> s/GFP_TRANSHUGE/GFP_THISNODE/ that is necessary on the changelog?
>> Well, my point is, what if the node we are explicitly trying to allocate
>> hugepage on, is in fact not allowed by our cpuset? This could happen in the page
>> fault case, no? Although in a weird configuration when process can (and really
>> gets scheduled to run) on a node where it is not allowed to allocate from...
>>
> If the process is running a node that is not allowed by the cpuset, then
> alloc_hugepage_vma() now fails with VM_FAULT_FALLBACK. That was the
> intended policy change of commit 077fcf116c8c ("mm/thp: allocate
> transparent hugepages on local node").
Ah, right, didn't realize that mempolicy also takes that into account.
Thanks for removing the exception anyway.
>
> [ alloc_hugepage_vma() should probably be using numa_mem_id() instead for
> memoryless node platforms. ]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists