From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B495C4320E for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D5F610CB for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:37:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 95D5F610CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CB9BD8D0001; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C434C6B0071; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:37:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B0BE58D0001; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:37:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0156.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.156]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CEF6B006C for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475D51F87B for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:37:54 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78455494068.25.AE36283 Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BA530000A9 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:37:53 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10070"; a="212823014" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,307,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="212823014" Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Aug 2021 05:37:51 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,307,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="670778789" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.151]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2021 05:37:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 20:37:47 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams , ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] mm/hugetlb: add support for mempolicy MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Message-ID: <20210809123747.GB46432@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <1627970362-61305-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1627970362-61305-4-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210809024430.GA46432@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 41BA530000A9 Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.120) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none) X-Stat-Signature: xafjdx41bh6ako93k7r6if7groh36pi3 X-HE-Tag: 1628512673-530126 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:41:40AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [snip] > > >From fc30718c40f02ba5ea73456af49173e66b5032c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Ben Widawsky > > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 23:01:11 -0400 > > Subject: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: add support for mempolicy MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY > > > > Implement the missing huge page allocation functionality while obeying the > > preferred node semantics. This is similar to the implementation for > > general page allocation, as it uses a fallback mechanism to try multiple > > preferred nodes first, and then all other nodes. > > > > To avoid adding too many "#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA" check, add a helper function > > in mempolicy.h to check whether a mempolicy is MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY. > > > > [akpm: fix compling issue when merging with other hugetlb patch] > > [Thanks to 0day bot for catching the !CONFIG_NUMA compiling issue] > > [Michal Hocko: suggest to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA check] > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200630212517.308045-12-ben.widawsky@intel.com > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1627970362-61305-4-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com > > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky > > Co-developed-by: Feng Tang > > Signed-off-by: Feng Tang > > Yeah. This looks much better. Thanks! > Acked-by: Michal Hocko Thank you! > Do you think you can provide same helpers for other policies as well? > Maybe we can get rid of some other ifdefery as well. Sure. I can make separate patch(es) for that. And you mean helper like mpol_is_bind/default/local/preferred? I just run 'git-grep MPOL', and for places using "mode == MPOL_XXX", mostly they are in mempolicy.[ch], the only another place is in shmem.c, do we need to create all the helpers for it and the potential future users? Thanks, Feng