From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CB86B0269 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 09:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id c20-v6so908989edt.1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6-v6si14266212edo.199.2018.10.22.06.46.58 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:46:57 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, thp: consolidate THP gfp handling into alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask Message-ID: <20181022134657.GG18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180925120326.24392-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20180925120326.24392-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <20180926133039.y7o5x4nafovxzh2s@kshutemo-mobl1> <20180926141708.GX6278@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180926142227.GZ6278@dhcp22.suse.cz> <26cb01ff-a094-79f4-7ceb-291e5e053c58@suse.cz> <20181022133058.GE18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <18476b0b-7300-f340-5845-9de0a019c65c@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18476b0b-7300-f340-5845-9de0a019c65c@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Andrea Argangeli , Zi Yan , Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Mon 22-10-18 15:35:24, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 10/22/18 3:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-10-18 15:15:38, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>> Forgot to add. One notable exception would be that the previous code > >>> would allow to hit > >>> WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE)); > >>> in policy_node if the requested node (e.g. cpu local one) was outside of > >>> the mbind nodemask. This is not possible now. We haven't heard about any > >>> such warning yet so it is unlikely that it happens though. > >> > >> I don't think the previous code could hit the warning, as the hugepage > >> path that would add __GFP_THISNODE didn't call policy_node() (containing > >> the warning) at all. IIRC early of your patch did hit the warning > >> though, which is why you added the MPOL_BIND policy check. > > > > Are you sure? What prevents node_isset(node, policy_nodemask()) == F and > > fallback to the !huge allocation path? > > That can indeed happen, but then the code also skipped the "gfp |= > __GFP_THISNODE" part, right? So the warning wouldn't trigger. I thought I have crawled all the code paths back then but maybe there were some phantom ones... If you are sure about then we can stick with the original changelog. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs