Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 02-11-22 09:03:57, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:39 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 01-11-22 12:13:35, Zach O'Keefe wrote:
> > [...]
> > > This is slightly tangential - but I don't want to send a new mail
> > > about it -- but I wonder if we should be doing __GFP_THISNODE +
> > > explicit node vs having hpage_collapse_find_target_node() set a
> > > nodemask. We could then provide fallback nodes for ties, or if some
> > > node contained > some threshold number of pages.
> >
> > I would simply go with something like this (not even compile tested):
> 
> Thanks, Michal. It is definitely an option. As I talked with Zach, I'm
> not sure whether it is worth making the code more complicated for such
> micro optimization or not. Removing __GFP_THISNODE or even removing
> the node balance code should be fine too IMHO. TBH I doubt there would
> be any noticeable difference.

I do agree that an explicit nodes (quasi)round robin sounds over
engineered. It makes some sense to try to target the prevalent node
though because this code can be executed from khugepaged and therefore
allocating with a completely different affinity than the original fault.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs