On 2024/9/13 18:36, Kefeng Wang wrote:
Hi All,
On 2024/9/10 22:18, Kefeng Wang wrote:
On 2024/9/10 22:06, Kefeng Wang wrote:
When the hugepage parameter is true in vma_alloc_folio(), it indicates
that we only try allocation on preferred node if possible for PMD_ORDER,
Should remove "for PMD_ORDER", I mean that it was used for PMD_ORDER,
but for other high-order, it will reduce the success rate of
allocation if without ddc1a5cbc05d.
but it could lead to lots of failures for large folio allocation,
luckily the hugepage parameter was deprecated since commit ddc1a5cbc05d
("mempolicy: alloc_pages_mpol() for NUMA policy without vma"), so no
effect on runtime behavior.
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Found the issue when backport mthp to inner kernel without ddc1a5cbc05d,
but for mainline, there is no issue, no clue why hugepage parameter was
retained, maybe just kill the parameter for mainline?
Any comments, fix in alloc_anon_folio() or remove hugepage parameter in
vma_alloc_folio(), thanks.
* vma_alloc_folio - Allocate a folio for a VMA.
@hugepage: Unused (was: For hugepages try only preferred node if possible).
Since hugepage won't be used in vma_alloc_folio(), maybe just delete
this parameter?
mm/memory.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index b84443e689a8..89a15858348a 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -4479,7 +4479,7 @@ static struct folio *alloc_anon_folio(struct
vm_fault *vmf)
gfp = vma_thp_gfp_mask(vma);
while (orders) {
addr = ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, PAGE_SIZE << order);
- folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, order, vma, addr, true);
+ folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, order, vma, addr, false);
if (folio) {
if (mem_cgroup_charge(folio, vma->vm_mm, gfp)) {
count_mthp_stat(order,
MTHP_STAT_ANON_FAULT_FALLBACK_CHARGE);
