Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:09:17 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>,
        Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@gmail.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] hugetlbfs: drop shared NUMA mempolicy pretence
Message-ID: <ZRIFDYUokzCtK0oQ@casper.infradead.org>
References: <2d872cef-7787-a7ca-10e-9d45a64c80b4@google.com>
 <47a562a-6998-4dc6-5df-3834d2f2f411@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47a562a-6998-4dc6-5df-3834d2f2f411@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:21:10AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> hugetlbfs_fallocate() goes through the motions of pasting a shared NUMA
> mempolicy onto its pseudo-vma, but how could there ever be a shared NUMA
> mempolicy for this file?  hugetlb_vm_ops has never offered a set_policy
> method, and hugetlbfs_parse_param() has never supported any mpol options
> for a mount-wide default policy.

Hah.  I was wondering, but never cared enough to investigate.  Thanks
for doing this.

Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>