Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1590561903-13186-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1590561903-13186-6-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200609134309.GG22623@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200609134309.GG22623@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:11:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4N-O9+Y9xmi6WfB5_1voBQJZzPetpksdqcBx51kkY6njw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] mm/hugetlb: unify hugetlb migration callback function
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2020=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 9=EC=9D=BC (=ED=99=94) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 10:43, M=
ichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Wed 27-05-20 15:44:56, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > -/* page migration callback function */
> >  struct page *alloc_huge_page_nodemask(struct hstate *h,
> >                               struct alloc_control *ac)
> >  {
> >       ac->gfp_mask |=3D htlb_alloc_mask(h);
> > +     if (ac->nid =3D=3D NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > +             ac->gfp_mask &=3D ~__GFP_THISNODE;
>
> Is this really needed? alloc_huge_page_node is currently only called
> from numa migration code and the target node should be always defined.

Thanks! When I read the code, I was not sure that the target node is always
defined so I left this code. However, if it's true, this code isn't
needed at all.
I will consider your suggestion in the next version.

Thanks.