On Tue 07-07-20 16:49:51, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 7/7/20 9:44 AM, js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> > > > > There are some similar functions for migration target allocation. Since > > there is no fundamental difference, it's better to keep just one rather > > than keeping all variants. This patch implements base migration target > > allocation function. In the following patches, variants will be converted > > to use this function. > > > > Changes should be mechanical but there are some differences. First, Some > > callers' nodemask is assgined to NULL since NULL nodemask will be > > considered as all available nodes, that is, &node_states[N_MEMORY]. > > Second, for hugetlb page allocation, gfp_mask is ORed since a user could > > provide a gfp_mask from now on. > > I think that's wrong. See how htlb_alloc_mask() determines between > GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE and GFP_HIGHUSER, but then you OR it with __GFP_MOVABLE so > it's always GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE. Right you are! Not that it would make any real difference because only migrateable hugetlb pages will get __GFP_MOVABLE and so we shouldn't really end up here for !movable pages in the first place (not sure about soft offlining at this moment). But yeah it would be simply better to override gfp mask for hugetlb which we have been doing anyway. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
