Re: [PATCH v5 13/18] mm: Remove __alloc_pages_node()
Zi Yan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-rt-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 13 Jul 2026, at 11:26, Brendan Jackman wrote: > On Fri Jul 3, 2026 at 2:57 PM UTC, Zi Yan wrote: >> On Fri Jul 3, 2026 at 8:31 AM EDT, Brendan Jackman wrote: >>> There were only a few users, which have been removed. The only advantage >>> of this API over alloc_pages_node() is avoiding a single conditional >>> branch. The disadvantages are: >>> >>> 1. More API surface, more sources of confusion, more maintenance. >>> >>> 2. Worse impact of CPU hotplug bugs: most users of __alloc_pages_node() >>> were using the result of cpu_to_node(); if the CPU gets hotplugged >>> out this will return NUMA_NO_NODE. If one of these paths fails to >>> protect against a concurrent hotplug then page_alloc.c will use >>> NUMA_NO_NODE as an index into NODE_DATA() and cause some horrible >>> memory corruption or other. With alloc_pages_node(), the code might >>> just work fine. >>> >>> Ulterior motive: this frees up the __* variants of the allocator APIs to >>> serve specifically for use as mm-internal API. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]> >>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> include/linux/gfp.h | 20 ++++---------------- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h >>> index 01d6d2591f49e..3bf55a5f9143e 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h >>> @@ -256,21 +256,6 @@ static inline void warn_if_node_offline(int this_node, gfp_t gfp_mask) >>> dump_stack(); >>> } >>> >>> -/* >>> - * Allocate pages, preferring the node given as nid. The node must be valid and >>> - * online. For more general interface, see alloc_pages_node(). >>> - */ >>> -static inline struct page * >>> -__alloc_pages_node_noprof(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) >>> -{ >>> - VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES); >>> - warn_if_node_offline(nid, gfp_mask); >>> - >>> - return __alloc_pages_noprof(gfp_mask, order, nid, NULL); >>> -} >>> - >>> -#define __alloc_pages_node(...) alloc_hooks(__alloc_pages_node_noprof(__VA_ARGS__)) >>> - >>> static inline >>> struct folio *__folio_alloc_node_noprof(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, int nid) >>> { >>> @@ -293,7 +278,10 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node_noprof(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >>> if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) >>> nid = numa_mem_id(); >>> >>> - return __alloc_pages_node_noprof(nid, gfp_mask, order); >>> + VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES); >> >> Could this become a VM_WARN_ON? > > Er, it will almost certainly crash later if this is violated. Personally You mean in warn_if_node_offline() when accessing the nodemask? > if I'm enabling DEBUG_VM I'd rather it crashes with a helpful stacktrace > instead of chasing random poihnters, likely corrupting memory, and then > crashing later in a completely undebuggable way instead. In this case, VM_WARN_ON + return NULL could work, right? > > TBH I don't really understand the "don't BUG" culture we have in Linux. > I usually just go along with it coz it doesn't seem important enough to > argue about. But now I'm wondering: if we really don't like VM_BUG_ON() > why not get rid of it completely? I wonder if there's some case-by-case > difference that I'm not picking up on. My understanding is that issues like the above one should be caught at development phase, so VM_WARN_ON() is sufficient. The source of “don’t BUG”: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=1cfd9d7e43d5a1cf739d1420b10b1e65feb02f88 You can read the commit message to know when BUG_ON() can be used. Best Regards, Yan, Zi