From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4FEC433EF for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0691660041 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:44:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 0691660041 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 5212C900002; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4CFCE6B0072; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:44:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3E5F1900002; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:44:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0243.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5716B0071 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin37.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517E831E68 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:44:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78571479882.37.9189A78 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2FA10000A0 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1A92005C; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:43:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1631274239; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=w86BLDTkoihpTkMV+bmcVu+5NgKjI1pW8yCMRIcNiRk=; b=aEmdav0TlL1DhoCmFgKBUDEb9LdZuGAI7g1zjKNtqSQ2Dhefhfx68Ix3YOXahsgN8qiAYj 05XfYluXf3avyedy+S9Yw8KKgj+x5AffZ6aNc7w1EKMR2kRfxVcrmIJ0vxXWozNBx24//m A3s5B9RwfBY0x3U76Iyr7zMkHrtAPZg= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2A8FA3BAB; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:43:55 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Feng Tang Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: detect allocation forbidden by cpuset and bail out early Message-ID: References: <1631003150-96935-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210908015014.GA28091@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210910074400.GA18707@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210910092132.GA54659@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210910112953.GB54659@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210910112953.GB54659@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> Authentication-Results: imf12.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=aEmdav0T; spf=pass (imf12.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Stat-Signature: h9wgezozayys98pam1ofk5ijf5pb75su X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: DC2FA10000A0 X-HE-Tag: 1631274240-991526 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri 10-09-21 19:29:53, Feng Tang wrote: [...] > > Sorry I didn't really get to read this previously. The implementation > > works but I find it harder to read than really necessary. Why don't you > > use first_zones_zonelist here as well? > > The concern I had was which zonelist to use, local node or the first node > of nodemask's node_zonelists[ZONELIST_FALLBACK], I am not sure I see your concern. Either of the two should work just fine because all nodes should be reachable from the zonelist. But why don't you simply do the same kind of check as in the page allocator? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs