On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 03:17:28PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 07:55 AM, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > +static struct page *__hugetlb_alloc_gigantic_page(struct hstate *h,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, int nid)
> > +{
> > + NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask_t, nodes_allowed, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY);
>
> What if the allocation fails and nodes_allowed is NULL?
> It might work fine now, but it's rather fragile, so I'd rather see an
Yes.
> explicit check.
See the comment below.
>
> BTW same thing applies to __nr_hugepages_store_common().
>
> > + struct page *page = NULL;
> > +
> > + /* Not NUMA */
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)) {
> > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > + nid = numa_mem_id();
> > +
> > + page = alloc_gigantic_page(nid, huge_page_order(h));
> > + if (page)
> > + prep_compound_gigantic_page(page, huge_page_order(h));
> > +
> > + NODEMASK_FREE(nodes_allowed);
> > + return page;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* NUMA && !vma */
> > + if (!vma) {
> > + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > + if (!init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(nodes_allowed)) {
> > + NODEMASK_FREE(nodes_allowed);
> > + nodes_allowed = &node_states[N_MEMORY];
> > + }
> > + } else if (nodes_allowed) {
The check is here.
Do we really need to re-arrange the code here for the explicit check? :)
Thanks
Huang Shijie
> > + init_nodemask_of_node(nodes_allowed, nid);
> > + } else {
> > + nodes_allowed = &node_states[N_MEMORY];
> > + }
> > +
> > + page = alloc_fresh_gigantic_page(h, nodes_allowed, true);
> > +
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>