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>
 <CAAmzW4N646-xYWosMwwnOgjAB+Z_eoZO4rs58ab+gYbHXmydJA@mail.gmail.com> <c3d97171-b36a-338b-5e5c-360bb52ffe0c@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <c3d97171-b36a-338b-5e5c-360bb52ffe0c@suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:55:33 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4OsP7tQ31X1qzezQXDcu7y-ox=QrbHm=KwxWmjQQW_Wsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] mm/hugetlb: unify migration callbacks
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        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 7=EC=9B=94 3=EC=9D=BC (=EA=B8=88) =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 1:13, Vl=
astimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On 6/26/20 6:02 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 2020=EB=85=84 6=EC=9B=94 25=EC=9D=BC (=EB=AA=A9) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 8:2=
6, Michal 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 pr=
epared
> > but perhaps I will use full gfp_mask by using htlb_alloc_mask() in call=
er sites.
>
> Yeah, that should be feasible. alloc_huge_page_vma() already does
> htlb_alloc_mask(h). In alloc_new_node_page() and new_page_nodemask() it w=
ould be
> consistent with the other cases handled there (THP and base).

Okay. Will check it.

Thanks.