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;
Message-ID: <af7ab3ce-fed2-1ffc-13a8-f9acbd201841@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:42:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: + mm-fix-panic-in-__alloc_pages.patch added to -mm tree
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     amakhalov@vmware.com, cl@linux.com, dennis@kernel.org,
        mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, osalvador@suse.de,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org
References: <20211108205031.UxDPHBZWa%akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <YYozLsIECu0Jnv0p@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <YYozLsIECu0Jnv0p@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 09.11.21 09:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I have opposed this patch http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YYj91Mkt4m8ySIWt@dhcp22.suse.cz
> There was no response to that feedback. I will not go as far as to nack
> it explicitly because pcp allocator is not an area I would nack patches
> but seriously, this issue needs a deeper look rather than a paper over
> patch. I hope we do not want to do a similar thing to all callers of
> cpu_to_mem.

While we could move it into the !HOLES version of cpu_to_mem(), calling
cpu_to_mem() on an offline (and eventually not even present) CPU (with
an offline node) is really a corner case.

Instead of additional runtime overhead for all cpu_to_mem(), my take
would be to just do it for the random special cases. Sure, we can
document that people should be careful when calling cpu_to_mem() on
offline CPUs. But IMHO it's really a corner case.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb