On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:54 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 5:41 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:37:09PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
> > > Eric Dumazet reported a strange numa spreading info in [1], and found
> > > commit 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings") introduced
> > > this issue [2].
> >
> > I think the root problem here is that we have two meanings for
> > NUMA_NO_NODE. I tend to read it as "The memory can be allocated from
> > any node", but here it's used to mean "The memory should be spread over
> > every node". Should we split those out as -1 and -2?
>
> I agree with Willy's suggestion to make it more explicit but as a
> followup work. This patch needs a backport, so keep this simple.
NUMA_NO_NODE in process context also meant :
Please follow current thread NUMA policies.
One could hope for instance, that whenever large BPF maps are allocated,
current thread could set non default NUMA policies.
