Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221103213641.7296-1-shy828301@gmail.com> <20221103213641.7296-2-shy828301@gmail.com>
 <Y2Tc2JNeFWXmZbQ1@dhcp22.suse.cz> <Y2ThtYKSxoP9S44i@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHbLzkpvZ05+xSGWLCYKJntsLGzdda449XpjCH7sRE-3S8h+0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2VtNfkwciJ5hHF6@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAHbLzkrcqc4rcH4iq3tU81=AsFi6MMpkwAFbdJf2vVPDy5HoXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2i6Bway4H/tKkuf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Y2i6Bway4H/tKkuf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 10:48:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkp=fq5qeuMBxiN14Y1F945N4DiNmArgi4nEACse5b9dWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 2/2] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     zokeefe@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 11:55 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri 04-11-22 13:52:52, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 12:51 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri 04-11-22 10:42:45, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri 04-11-22 10:35:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > > > index ef4aea3b356e..308daafc4871 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > > > > @@ -227,7 +227,10 @@ static inline
> > > > > >  struct folio *__folio_alloc_node(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, int nid)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
> > > > > > -     VM_WARN_ON((gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && !node_online(nid));
> > > > > > +     if((gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && !node_online(nid)) {
> > > > >
> > > > > or maybe even better
> > > > >         if ((gfp & (__GFP_THISNODE|__GFP_NOWARN) == __GFP_THISNODE|__GFP_NOWARN) && !node_online(nid))
> > > > >
> > > > > because it doesn't really make much sense to dump this information if
> > > > > the allocation failure is going to provide sufficient (and even more
> > > > > comprehensive) context for the failure. It looks more hairy but this can
> > > > > be hidden in a nice little helper shared between the two callers.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for the suggestion, printing warning if the gfp flag
> > > > allows sounds like a good idea to me. Will adopt it. But the check
> > > > should look like:
> > > >
> > > > if ((gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && !(gfp & __GFP_NOWARN) && !node_online(nid))
> > >
> > > The idea was to warn if __GFP_NOWARN _was_ specified. Otherwise we will
> > > get an allocation failure splat from the page allocator and there it
> > > will be clear that the node doesn't have any memory associated. It is
> > > exactly __GFP_NOWARN case that would be a silent failure and potentially
> > > a buggy code (like this THP collapse path). See my point?
> >
> > Aha, yeah, see your point now. I didn't see the splat from the
> > allocator from the bug report, then I realized it had not called into
> > allocator yet before the warning was triggered.
>
> And it would trigger even if it did because GFP_TRANSHUGE has
> __GFP_NOWARN

Yeah, the syzbot has panic on warn set, so kernel just panicked before
entering the allocator.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs