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: <1592892828-1934-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1592892828-1934-4-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200625112625.GD1320@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200625112625.GD1320@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:02:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4N646-xYWosMwwnOgjAB+Z_eoZO4rs58ab+gYbHXmydJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] mm/hugetlb: unify migration callbacks
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 25=EC=9D=BC (=EB=AA=A9) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 8:26, M=
ichal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Tue 23-06-20 15:13:43, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > There is no difference between two migration callback functions,
> > alloc_huge_page_node() and alloc_huge_page_nodemask(), except
> > __GFP_THISNODE handling. This patch adds an argument, gfp_mask, on
> > alloc_huge_page_nodemask() and replace the callsite for
> > alloc_huge_page_node() with the call to
> > alloc_huge_page_nodemask(..., __GFP_THISNODE).
> >
> > It's safe to remove a node id check in alloc_huge_page_node() since
> > there is no caller passing NUMA_NO_NODE as a node id.
>
> Yes this is indeed safe. alloc_huge_page_node used to be called from
> other internal hugetlb allocation layer and that allowed NUMA_NO_NODE as
> well. Now it is called only from the mempolicy migration callback and
> that always specifies a node and want to stick with that node.
>
> But I have to say I really dislike the gfp semantic because it is
> different from any other allocation function I can think of. It
> specifies what to be added rather than what should be used.
>
> Removing the function is ok but please use the full gfp mask instead
> or if that is impractical for some reason (wich shouldn't be the case
> as htlb_alloc_mask should be trivial to make static inline) make it
> explicit that this is not a gfp_mask but a gfp modifier and explicitly
> state which modifiers are allowed.

Okay. I will try to solve your concern. Concrete solution is not yet prepar=
ed
but perhaps I will use full gfp_mask by using htlb_alloc_mask() in caller s=
ites.

Thanks.