From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f199.google.com (mail-pg1-f199.google.com [209.85.215.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A38B6B000C for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f199.google.com with SMTP id r16-v6so4098068pgv.17 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r28-v6si6192319pgb.444.2018.10.24.16.17.56 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:17:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, thp: consolidate THP gfp handling into alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask Message-Id: <20181024161754.0d174e7c22113f4f8aad1940@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <583b20e5-4925-e175-1533-5c2d2bab9192@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> <20181018191147.33e8d5e1ebd785c06aab7b30@linux-foundation.org> <20181019080657.GJ18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <583b20e5-4925-e175-1533-5c2d2bab9192@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Michal Hocko , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Andrea Argangeli , Zi Yan , Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:27:54 +0200 Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > : Moreover the oriinal code allowed to trigger > > : 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 but still a signal of > > : a wrong code layering. > > Ah, as I said in the other mail, I think it's inaccurate, the warning > was not possible to hit. > > There's also a slight difference wrt MPOL_BIND. The previous code would > avoid using __GFP_THISNODE if the local node was outside of > policy_nodemask(). After your patch __GFP_THISNODE is avoided for all > MPOL_BIND policies. So there's a difference that if local node is > actually allowed by the bind policy's nodemask, previously > __GFP_THISNODE would be added, but now it won't be. I don't think it > matters that much though, but maybe the changelog could say that > (instead of the inaccurate note about warning). Note the other policy > where nodemask is relevant is MPOL_INTERLEAVE, and that's unchanged by > this patch. So the above could go into the changelog, yes? > When that's addressed, you can add What is it that you'd like to see addressed? Purely changelog updates? > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka Thanks.