On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:26 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/1/21 05:46, Yang Shi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:38 PM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:49:43AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > >> > Gently ping... > >> > > >> > Does this patch make sense? BTW, I have a couple of other khugepaged > >> > related patches in my queue. I plan to send them with this patch > >> > together. It would be great to hear some feedback before resending > >> > this one. > >> > >> I don't really care for !NUMA optimization. I believe that most of setups > >> that benefit from THP has NUMA enabled compile time. > > > > Agreed. > > > >> > >> But if you wanna to go this path, make an effort to cleanup other > >> artifacts for the !NUMA optimization: the ifdef has to be gone and all > >> callers of these helpers has to be revisited. There's more opportunities to > >> cleanup. Like it is very odd that khugepaged_prealloc_page() frees the > >> page. > > > > Yes, they are gone in this patch. The only remaining for !NUMA is > > khugepaged_find_target_node() which just returns 0. > > As Kirill pointed out, there's also khugepaged_prealloc_page() where the > only remaining variant does actually no preallocation, just freeing of an > unused page and some kind of "sleep after first alloc fail, break after > second alloc fail" logic. > This could now be moved to khugepaged_do_scan() loop itself and maybe it > will be easier to follow. Aha, I see. Misunderstood him. I'm supposed that you mean move into khugepaged_scan_mm_slot(). > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kirill A. Shutemov > > >
