From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm: remove GFP_THISNODE Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: <54F0F548.6070109@suse.cz> References: <54EED9A7.5010505@suse.cz> <54F01E02.1090007@suse.cz> <54F0ED7E.6010900@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Pravin Shelar , Jarno Rajahalme , Greg Thelen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org To: David Rientjes Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 27.2.2015 23:31, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>> Do you see any issues with either patch 1/2 or patch 2/2 besides the >>> s/GFP_TRANSHUGE/GFP_THISNODE/ that is necessary on the changelog? >> Well, my point is, what if the node we are explicitly trying to allocate >> hugepage on, is in fact not allowed by our cpuset? This could happen in the page >> fault case, no? Although in a weird configuration when process can (and really >> gets scheduled to run) on a node where it is not allowed to allocate from... >> > If the process is running a node that is not allowed by the cpuset, then > alloc_hugepage_vma() now fails with VM_FAULT_FALLBACK. That was the > intended policy change of commit 077fcf116c8c ("mm/thp: allocate > transparent hugepages on local node"). Ah, right, didn't realize that mempolicy also takes that into account. Thanks for removing the exception anyway. > > [ alloc_hugepage_vma() should probably be using numa_mem_id() instead for > memoryless node platforms. ] -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org