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;
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:39:46 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, guohanjun@huawei.com,
        shakeelb@google.com, urezki@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/vmalloc: fix numa spreading for large hash
 tables
Message-ID: <YW1rEt0u2CSCYgnJ@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20211018123710.1540996-1-chenwandun@huawei.com>
 <20211018123710.1540996-2-chenwandun@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211018123710.1540996-2-chenwandun@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:37:09PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
> Eric Dumazet reported a strange numa spreading info in [1], and found
> commit 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings") introduced
> this issue [2].

I think the root problem here is that we have two meanings for
NUMA_NO_NODE.  I tend to read it as "The memory can be allocated from
any node", but here it's used to mean "The memory should be spread over
every node".  Should we split those out as -1 and -2?