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
