On 2/2/21 10:22 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
>> +static struct page *alloc_demote_page(struct page *page, unsigned long node)
>> +{
>> + struct migration_target_control mtc = {
>> + /*
>> + * Fail quickly and quietly. Page will likely
>> + * just be discarded instead of migrated.
>> + */
>> + .gfp_mask = GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN,
>> + .nid = node
>> + };
>> +
>> + return alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc);
> Other than the gfp flag question raised by Oscar, I'm wondering how we
> guarantee the demotion allocation happens on the designated node. In
> the previous version __GFP_THISNODE is set to guarantee this. In this
> version you switched to use alloc_migration_target() API but without
> having nodemask or __GFP_THISNODE. If nodemask is NULL the allocation
> may fall back to an unexpected node.
>
> And GFP_HIGHUSER does respect cpuset, so if the demotion target node
> is excluded by the cpuset which the task belongs to, the migration
> would fail. This might be a way to respect cpuset, but it should just
> work for direct reclaimer. So, is this change really expected?
No, that wasn't intended. I'll restore __GFP_THISNODE. Thanks for
noting this.
