2020년 6월 30일 (화) 오후 3:42, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
>
> On Tue 30-06-20 15:30:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 2020년 6월 29일 (월) 오후 4:55, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > index 57ece74e3aae..c1595b1d36f3 100644
> > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > @@ -1092,10 +1092,14 @@ static struct page *dequeue_huge_page_nodemask(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > /* Movability of hugepages depends on migration support. */
> > > static inline gfp_t htlb_alloc_mask(struct hstate *h)
> > > {
> > > + gfp_t gfp;
> > > +
> > > if (hugepage_movable_supported(h))
> > > - return GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE;
> > > + gfp = GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE;
> > > else
> > > - return GFP_HIGHUSER;
> > > + gfp = GFP_HIGHUSER;
> > > +
> > > + return current_gfp_context(gfp);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static struct page *dequeue_huge_page_vma(struct hstate *h,
> > >
> > > If we even fix this general issue for other allocations and allow a
> > > better CMA exclusion then it would be implemented consistently for
> > > everybody.
> >
> > Yes, I have reviewed the memalloc_nocma_{} APIs and found the better way
> > for CMA exclusion. I will do it after this patch is finished.
> >
> > > Does this make more sense to you are we still not on the same page wrt
> > > to the actual problem?
> >
> > Yes, but we have different opinions about it. As said above, I will make
> > a patch for better CMA exclusion after this patchset. It will make
> > code consistent.
> > I'd really appreciate it if you wait until then.
>
> As I've said I would _prefer_ simplicity over "correctness" if it is only
> partial and hard to reason about from the userspace experience but this
> is not something I would _insist_ on. If Mike as a maintainer of the
> code is ok with that then I will not stand in the way.
Okay.
> But please note that a missing current_gfp_context inside
> htlb_alloc_mask is a subtle bug. I do not think it matters right now but
> with a growing use of scoped apis this might actually hit some day so I
> believe we want to have it in place.
Okay. I will keep in mind and consider it when fixing CMA exclusion on the
other patchset.
Thanks.
