On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:27:54 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> 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 <vbabka@xxxxxxx> Thanks.
