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: <1594107889-32228-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1594107889-32228-6-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <20200707114019.GI5913@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200708071916.GD16543@js1304-desktop>
 <20200708074820.GE7271@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200708074820.GE7271@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:26:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4PdjSa0qO3EJwCEBTrLyCpCXKSZbV1b-ptPORDKqO4AvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] mm/migrate: clear __GFP_RECLAIM for THP
 allocation for migration
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>
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 8=EC=9D=BC (=EC=88=98) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 4:48, Mi=
chal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Wed 08-07-20 16:19:17, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:40:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm/migrate: clear __GFP_RECLAIM for THP allocation for
> >  migration
> >
> > In migration target allocation functions, THP allocations uses differen=
t
> > gfp_mask, especially, in regard to the reclaim gfp_mask. There is no
> > reason to use different reclaim gfp_mask for each cases and it is
> > an obstacle to make a common function in order to clean-up migration
> > target allocation functions. This patch fixes this situation by using
> > common reclaim gfp_mask for THP allocation.
>
> I would find the following more understandable, feel free to reuse parts
> that you like:
> "
> new_page_nodemask is a migration callback and it tries to use a common
> gfp flags for the target page allocation whether it is a base page or a
> THP. The later only adds GFP_TRANSHUGE to the given mask. This results
> in the allocation being slightly more aggressive than necessary because
> the resulting gfp mask will contain also __GFP_RECLAIM_KSWAPD. THP
> allocations usually exclude this flag to reduce over eager background
> reclaim during a high THP allocation load which has been seen during
> large mmaps initialization. There is no indication that this is a
> problem for migration as well but theoretically the same might happen
> when migrating large mappings to a different node. Make the migration
> callback consistent with regular THP allocations.
> "

Looks good!
I will use this description.

Thanks.