On Wed 14-06-17 15:42:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 14-06-17 15:18:26, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 06/13/2017 11:00 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > @@ -1717,13 +1640,22 @@ struct page *alloc_huge_page_node(struct hstate *h, int nid)
> > > page = dequeue_huge_page_node(h, nid);
> > > spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > >
> > > - if (!page)
> > > - page = __alloc_buddy_huge_page_no_mpol(h, nid);
> > > + if (!page) {
> > > + nodemask_t nmask;
> > > +
> > > + if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > > + nmask = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > + node_set(nid, nmask);
> >
> > TBH I don't like this hack too much, and would rather see __GFP_THISNODE
> > involved, which picks a different (short) zonelist. Also it's allocating
> > nodemask on stack, which we generally avoid? Although the callers
> > currently seem to be shallow.
>
> Fair enough. That would require pulling gfp mask handling up the call
> chain. This on top of this patch + refreshes for other patches later in
> the series as they will conflict now?
I've rebase the attempts/hugetlb-zonelists branch for an easier review.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
