Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Feb 2024 16:18:22 +0800 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hugetlb: remove __GFP_THISNODE flag when dissolving the old hugetlb | From | Baolin Wang <> |
| |
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.
>> 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?
| |