Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:53:38 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, mhocko@suse.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        shakeelb@google.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, shy828301@gmail.com,
        guro@fb.com, vbabka@suse.cz, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
        raquini@redhat.com, david@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/vmscan.c: Prevent allocating shrinker_info on
 offlined nodes
Message-Id: <20211207175338.229c52144a67fc1a76b5840c@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <a1c3e952-866d-e3b4-1479-8f04e963bf11@redhat.com>
References: <20211207224013.880775-1-npache@redhat.com>
        <20211207224013.880775-2-npache@redhat.com>
        <Ya/vaGdKHm6Zy3ML@casper.infradead.org>
        <a1c3e952-866d-e3b4-1479-8f04e963bf11@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 19:25:25 -0500 Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/7/21 18:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 05:40:13PM -0500, Nico Pache wrote:
> >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> @@ -222,13 +222,16 @@ static int expand_one_shrinker_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >>  	int size = map_size + defer_size;
> >>  
> >>  	for_each_node(nid) {
> >> +		int tmp = nid;
> >>  		pn = memcg->nodeinfo[nid];
> >>  		old = shrinker_info_protected(memcg, nid);
> >>  		/* Not yet online memcg */
> >>  		if (!old)
> >>  			return 0;
> >>  
> >> -		new = kvmalloc_node(sizeof(*new) + size, GFP_KERNEL, nid);
> >> +		if(!node_online(nid))
> >> +			tmp = numa_mem_id();
> >> +		new = kvmalloc_node(sizeof(*new) + size, GFP_KERNEL, tmp);
> >>  		if (!new)
> > 
> > Why should this be fixed here and not in, say, kvmalloc_node()?
> 
> according to Michal, the caller should be responsible for making sure it is
> allocating on a correct node. This avoids adding branches to hot-paths and
> wasting cycles. Im not opposed to moving it to kvmalloc_node, but it may result
> in masking other issues from other callers.
> > 

Yes, kvmalloc_node(nid) should allocate on `nid', or should fail.

A new kvmalloc_try_node() or whatever would express this idea.