2020년 6월 25일 (목) 오후 8:26, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성: > > On Tue 23-06-20 15:13:43, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> > > > > There is no difference between two migration callback functions, > > alloc_huge_page_node() and alloc_huge_page_nodemask(), except > > __GFP_THISNODE handling. This patch adds an argument, gfp_mask, on > > alloc_huge_page_nodemask() and replace the callsite for > > alloc_huge_page_node() with the call to > > alloc_huge_page_nodemask(..., __GFP_THISNODE). > > > > It's safe to remove a node id check in alloc_huge_page_node() since > > there is no caller passing NUMA_NO_NODE as a node id. > > Yes this is indeed safe. alloc_huge_page_node used to be called from > other internal hugetlb allocation layer and that allowed NUMA_NO_NODE as > well. Now it is called only from the mempolicy migration callback and > that always specifies a node and want to stick with that node. > > But I have to say I really dislike the gfp semantic because it is > different from any other allocation function I can think of. It > specifies what to be added rather than what should be used. > > Removing the function is ok but please use the full gfp mask instead > or if that is impractical for some reason (wich shouldn't be the case > as htlb_alloc_mask should be trivial to make static inline) make it > explicit that this is not a gfp_mask but a gfp modifier and explicitly > state which modifiers are allowed. Okay. I will try to solve your concern. Concrete solution is not yet prepared but perhaps I will use full gfp_mask by using htlb_alloc_mask() in caller sites. Thanks.
