From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592F21C2323 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733388750; cv=none; b=rZ+v4XfoYRmKwnERx5i6xrbcDm3zpzuxpapeiI9fN/3QM5pxODwJ9C7io8Et3NYZVvYfdcqjxPYaaNwMQR4nJ8Djiq8C0VaWOGDnzYxs+F/tXmAItEDJmxmzNNMBDoODByY/C39YAFjUi1amfkDKqF0+qxzvGZcuvBBF8oItgEI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733388750; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g62pkvCUBWzMNtuIunTVP3PllBdhURw+gpEUkoF6f0k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Rw6FDJtTlW74BxiMZzYooTz64yTkIMDm02GoJ61mIRO4nGkU5rWotQLapYdmpMpVx+bOmOR8u2aUHoN57c1c2eiZZ8GipK2gQru/KOa5B0sCG1tFYStxoCo0hY1hjfPm7VK8qxIjWm/vJJA+/wRMv1TMiGxlxg/+x/JbxOQpxbI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=gpEfni1c; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="gpEfni1c" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733388745; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0SHiuhau4MQj9NvLl55cWuaRJpWQzDVP/XF/moI9fhs=; b=gpEfni1cdSuXztmJbymxT2SYkUw8s/lnvWBCAF5XCZnlSyCZmY1p0mVR345lkEdIrf/ImY tc33hfJYUf7nAj+6I2CaFarS9td+zGGOFLuU/uOpsnW+TRVTvew9ojb9iP69J8CGNgNWGL Vl4WAQCis2k6GboiPKE2a0uAkrqzofE= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-306-4xB9CSX2Oz6TQYDG2slVfw-1; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 03:52:24 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 4xB9CSX2Oz6TQYDG2slVfw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 4xB9CSX2Oz6TQYDG2slVfw Received: from mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84B4F1956048; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from t14s.fritz.box (unknown [10.22.64.94]) by mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AAC1956052; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:52:19 +0000 (UTC) From: David Hildenbrand To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Oscar Salvador , Zi Yan Subject: [PATCH v1 0/2] mm: don't use __GFP_HARDWALL when migrating remote pages Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20241205085217.2086353-1-david@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.17 Sending this via the RH SMTP first, because IT doesn't see any obvious problems why the mails shouldn't be reaching linux-mm, so let's see if the problems are gone now. If this doesn't work, I'll resend them using the known-working gmail SMTP. Sorry already for the noise ... --- __GFP_HARDWALL means that we will be respecting the cpuset of the caller when allocating a page. However, when we are migrating remote allocations (pages allocated from other context), the cpuset of the current context is irrelevant. For memory offlining + alloc_contig_*(), this is rather obvious. There might be other such page migration users, let's start with the obvious ones. Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Oscar Salvador Cc: Zi Yan David Hildenbrand (2): mm/page_alloc: don't use __GFP_HARDWALL when migrating pages via alloc_contig*() mm/memory_hotplug: don't use __GFP_HARDWALL when migrating pages via memory offlining mm/memory_hotplug.c | 2 +- mm/page_alloc.c | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- 2.47.1