Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-55007-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:19:54 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>, muchun.song@linux.dev
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, osalvador@suse.de, david@redhat.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hugetlb: remove __GFP_THISNODE flag when
 dissolving the old hugetlb
Message-ID: <ZcIx-uQm5MUzzyL1@tiehlicka>
References: <Zbu4cD1XLFLfKan8@tiehlicka>
 <3f31cd89-f349-4f9e-bc29-35f29f489633@linux.alibaba.com>
 <ZbylJr_bbWCUMjMl@tiehlicka>
 <f1606912-5bcc-46be-b4f4-666149eab7bd@linux.alibaba.com>
 <Zby7-dTtPIy2k5pj@tiehlicka>
 <909cee7d-0201-4429-b85d-7d2662516e45@linux.alibaba.com>
 <ZcCnNPkNpE7KTHZu@tiehlicka>
 <2613b670-84f8-4f97-ab4e-0d480fc1a3f8@linux.alibaba.com>
 <ZcDvVA84s9-Azr33@tiehlicka>
 <67e0d81f-7125-455c-b02f-a9e675d55c6c@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <67e0d81f-7125-455c-b02f-a9e675d55c6c@linux.alibaba.com>

On Tue 06-02-24 16:18:22, Baolin Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/2/5 22:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 05-02-24 21:06:17, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > It is quite possible that traditional users (like large DBs) do not use
> > > > CMA heavily so such a problem was not observed so far. That doesn't mean
> > > > those problems do not really matter.
> > > 
> > > CMA is just one case, as I mentioned before, other situations can also break
> > > the per-node hugetlb pool now.
> > 
> > Is there any other case than memory hotplug which is arguably different
> > as it is a disruptive operation already.
> 
> Yes, like I said before the longterm pinning, memory failure and the users
> of alloc_contig_pages() may also break the per-node hugetlb pool.

memory failure is similar to the memory hotplug in the sense that it is
a disruptive operation and fallback to a different node might be the
only option to handle it. On the other hand longterm pinning is similar to 
a_c_p and it should fail if it cannot be migrated within the node.

It seems that hugetlb is quite behind with many other features and I am
not really sure how to deal with that. What is your take Munchun Song?

> > > Let's focus on the main point, why we should still keep inconsistency
> > > behavior to handle free and in-use hugetlb for alloc_contig_range()? That's
> > > really confused.
> > 
> > yes, this should behave consistently. And the least surprising way to
> > handle that from the user configuration POV is to not move outside of
> > the original NUMA node.
> 
> So you mean we should also add __GFP_THISNODE flag in
> alloc_migration_target() when allocating a new hugetlb as the target for
> migration, that can unify the behavior and avoid breaking the per-node pool?

Not as simple as that, because alloc_migration_target is used also from
an user driven migration.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs