Re: [PATCH V4] mm/thp: Allocate transparent hugepages on local node

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
> > 
> > That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it?  Copied from
> > alloc_pages_vma().  "vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem" would be better.
> > 
> > And it should tell us whether mmap_sem required a down_read or a
> > down_write.  What purpose is it serving?
> 
> This is already said for mmap_sem further above this comment line, which
> should be just deleted (and from alloc_hugepage_vma comment too).
> 
> >> + *
> >> + */
> >> +struct page *alloc_hugepage_vma(gfp_t gfp, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> +				unsigned long addr, int order)
> > 
> > This pointlessly bloats the kernel if CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=n?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c~mm-thp-allocate-transparent-hugepages-on-local-node-fix
> > +++ a/mm/mempolicy.c
> 
> How about this cleanup on top? I'm not fully decided on the GFP_TRANSHUGE test.
> This is potentially false positive, although I doubt anything else uses the same
> gfp mask bits.

This info on gfp mask should be in commit message.

And what about WARN_ON_ONCE() if we the matching bits with
!TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE?

> 
> Should "hugepage" be extra bool parameter instead? Should I #ifdef the parameter
> only for CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE, or is it not worth the ugliness?

Do we have spare gfp bit? ;)

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/