On 10/25/18 1:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? Yeah. >> When that's addressed, you can add > > What is it that you'd like to see addressed? Purely changelog updates? Right. >> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > > Thanks. >
