2020년 7월 3일 (금) 오전 1:13, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>님이 작성: > > On 6/26/20 6:02 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah, that should be feasible. alloc_huge_page_vma() already does > htlb_alloc_mask(h). In alloc_new_node_page() and new_page_nodemask() it would be > consistent with the other cases handled there (THP and base). Okay. Will check it. Thanks.
