Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] mm, hugetlb: unify core page allocation accounting and initialization | From | Mike Kravetz <> | Date | Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:09:26 -0800 |
| |
On 11/28/2017 10:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 28-11-17 13:34:53, Mike Kravetz wrote: >> On 11/28/2017 06:12 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>> +/* >>> + * Allocates a fresh page to the hugetlb allocator pool in the node interleaved >>> + * manner. >>> + */ >>> static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(struct hstate *h, nodemask_t *nodes_allowed) >>> { >>> struct page *page; >>> int nr_nodes, node; >>> - int ret = 0; >>> + gfp_t gfp_mask = htlb_alloc_mask(h) | __GFP_THISNODE; >>> >>> for_each_node_mask_to_alloc(h, nr_nodes, node, nodes_allowed) { >>> - page = alloc_fresh_huge_page_node(h, node); >>> - if (page) { >>> - ret = 1; >>> + page = __hugetlb_alloc_buddy_huge_page(h, gfp_mask, >>> + node, nodes_allowed); >> >> I don't have the greatest understanding of node/nodemasks, but ... >> Since __hugetlb_alloc_buddy_huge_page calls __alloc_pages_nodemask(), do >> we still need to explicitly iterate over nodes with >> for_each_node_mask_to_alloc() here? > > Yes we do, because callers depend on the round robin allocation policy > which is implemented by the ugly for_each_node_mask_to_alloc. I am not > saying I like the way this is done but this is user visible thing.
Ah, thanks.
I missed the __GFP_THISNODE. Because of that, the nodes_allowed mask is not used in the allocation attempts. So, cycling through the nodes with the for_each_node_mask_to_alloc makes sense.
> Or maybe I've missunderstood the whole thing...
No, this should preserve the original behavior.
-- Mike Kravetz
| |