> +
> +bool numa_hinting_fault(struct page *page, int numpages)
> +{
> + bool migrated = false;
> +
> + /*
> + * "current->mm" could be different from the "mm" where the
> + * NUMA hinting page fault happened, if get_user_pages()
> + * triggered the fault on some other process "mm". That is ok,
> + * all we care about is to count the "page_nid" access on the
> + * current->task_autonuma, even if the page belongs to a
> + * different "mm".
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!current->mm);
Given the above comment, Do we really need this warn_on?
I think I have seen this warning when using autonuma.
> + if (likely(current->mm && !current->mempolicy && autonuma_enabled())) {
> + struct task_struct *p = current;
> + int this_nid, page_nid, access_nid;
> + bool new_pass;
> +
> + /*
> + * new_pass is only true the first time the thread
> + * faults on this pass of knuma_scand.
> + */
> + new_pass = p->task_autonuma->task_numa_fault_pass !=
> + p->mm->mm_autonuma->mm_numa_fault_pass;
> + page_nid = page_to_nid(page);
> + this_nid = numa_node_id();
> + VM_BUG_ON(this_nid < 0);
> + VM_BUG_ON(this_nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
> + access_nid = numa_hinting_fault_memory_follow_cpu(page,
> + this_nid,
> + page_nid,
> + new_pass,
> + &migrated);
> + /* "page" has been already freed if "migrated" is true */
> + numa_hinting_fault_cpu_follow_memory(p, access_nid,
> + numpages, new_pass);
> + if (unlikely(new_pass))
> + /*
> + * Set the task's fault_pass equal to the new
> + * mm's fault_pass, so new_pass will be false
> + * on the next fault by this thread in this
> + * same pass.
> + */
> + p->task_autonuma->task_numa_fault_pass =
> + p->mm->mm_autonuma->mm_numa_fault_pass;
> + }
> +
> + return migrated;
> +}
> +
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>