On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 08:33:20PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 02-03-21 10:50:32, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 03:37:33PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> > > are in the same node when
On Tue 02-03-21 10:50:32, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 03:37:33PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> > are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
> > __GFP_THISNODE to
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 03:37:33PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
> __GFP_THISNODE to __vmalloc_node_range(). Fix it by caling
> mod_lruvec_page_state()
On Tue 02-03-21 06:02:14, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:52 PM Muchun Song wrote:
> >
> > The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> > are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
> > __GFP_THISNODE to
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:52 PM Muchun Song wrote:
>
> The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
> __GFP_THISNODE to __vmalloc_node_range().
Instead of __GFP_THISNODE, mention that the
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:34 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
[snip]
> > Yeah, imprecision may
> > not be a problem. But if this is what we did deliberately, I think that
> > it is better to add a comment there. Thanks.
>
> Yes the comment is quite confusing. I suspect it meant to say
> /* All
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:34 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Tue 02-03-21 17:23:42, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:44 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 02-03-21 15:37:33, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack
> > > >
On Tue 02-03-21 17:23:42, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:44 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 02-03-21 15:37:33, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> > > are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:44 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Tue 02-03-21 15:37:33, Muchun Song wrote:
> > The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> > are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
> > __GFP_THISNODE to
On Tue 02-03-21 15:37:33, Muchun Song wrote:
> The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
> are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
> __GFP_THISNODE to __vmalloc_node_range(). Fix it by caling
> mod_lruvec_page_state() for each page one
The alloc_thread_stack_node() cannot guarantee that allocated stack pages
are in the same node when CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. Because we do not specify
__GFP_THISNODE to __vmalloc_node_range(). Fix it by caling
mod_lruvec_page_state() for each page one by one.
Fixes: 991e7673859e ("mm: memcontrol:
11 matches
Mail list logo